Kicked off A4e and then wrestled out of job center.

Oldernotwiser

pol747 wrote: »

Just a few points picked up on reading the replies on this thread, JC staff and staff at these so called training centres are all under pressure to get people back into work, but its the way people are treated that infuriates the unemployed. Yes there are those that do not want to work and need to be pushed but to treat us all the same is disgusting, having just finished a new deal course (13 weeks of boredom!) i find myself in the same position as before i started, having to sign back on and still looking for work.
The idea of this "new deal" is to get the long term unemployed back into work but if they think this can be acheived by forcing people to do voluntary work for their dole money then it will not work. As you are not registered unemployed while on this course you are in effect working for your dole, this amounts to virtual slave labour (just over £2 per hour) and of course if you refuse then you are thrown off the course and your benefit stopped.
As for volunteering "Olderbutwiser" says there is no downside to volunteering but there is, my own experience has shown me that volunteers will be put upon more and more while the paid workers sit back and do less and less, which is why i gave up volunteer work years ago, why should i do the same work for nothing as someone who is paid a good wage.
The idea of new deal is good but flawed in every aspect of its execution, from the top to the very bottom.

I think that several points in your post illustrate why you're still unemployed. Surely the more work and responsibilities you're given as a volunteer, the better? The last thing you want in this situation is just to sit around and watch other people!

Personally I can't see why people shouldn't have to work for their dole after a reasonable period of signing on. It may only be a couple of pounds per hour if all you receive is JSA but you might be surprised at the hourly rate if you factor in LHA and CTB! If this proves an incentive to some to up their jobhunting - all the better.

I think a willing attitude goes a long way in these circumstances and that seems to be something you're missing.

SomeBozo

pol747 wrote: »

Just a few points picked up on reading the replies on this thread, JC staff and staff at these so called training centres are all under pressure to get people back into work, but its the way people are treated that infuriates the unemployed. Yes there are those that do not want to work and need to be pushed but to treat us all the same is disgusting, having just finished a new deal course (13 weeks of boredom!) i find myself in the same position as before i started, having to sign back on and still looking for work.
The idea of this "new deal" is to get the long term unemployed back into work but if they think this can be acheived by forcing people to do voluntary work for their dole money then it will not work. As you are not registered unemployed while on this course you are in effect working for your dole, this amounts to virtual slave labour (just over £2 per hour) and of course if you refuse then you are thrown off the course and your benefit stopped.
As for volunteering "Olderbutwiser" says there is no downside to volunteering but there is, my own experience has shown me that volunteers will be put upon more and more while the paid workers sit back and do less and less, which is why i gave up volunteer work years ago, why should i do the same work for nothing as someone who is paid a good wage.
The idea of new deal is good but flawed in every aspect of its execution, from the top to the very bottom.

Yet more workshy comments, its amazing how this thread has brought them out!

The government is willing to pay you a modest income, provide for your children (if applicable) and the roof over your head.

In return I don't think its unreasonable to expect some kind of commitment.

Volunteering keeps your CV updated, gets you to meet people, provide possible leads on new jobs and keeps you in the 9-5 work environment.

Bozo

wishface

red_devil wrote: »

I also think its disgusting that everyone is lumped together in one room regardless of background. Everyone is different and are unemployed for different reasons. You can be mixing with people who have been in prison, people who like using colourful language, what on earth have you got in common you just arent in the same box.

One size does not fit all. Its a well known fact that the provider is usually understaffed too and do not have much time to give to people so they dont even get the service they should get from the course.

The work they give you will normally be a job in the charity sector which is just slave labour and does not lead to a job at the end of it. There is nothing to stop you doing voluntary work off your own back without going through the scheme if you want too. I think it looks better.

It's not just disgusting it's a complete lack of common sense and totally counter productive. We don't even teach in schools like that so why does the DWP behave this way?

withabix

ESA wrote: »

I'm not sure who I resented dealing with the most. The neds or the 'Professionals' who thought they were better than everyone else in the office.

The neds had the lack of an education to 'excuse' their annoyingness.

You shouldn't refer to the Job Centre staff as 'neds', although you might be right about their lack of education giving them an excuse for their annoyingness....:D

wishface

glossgal wrote: »

I don't see how a hardline approach to Welfare is a bad thing though-despite what you say about bad treatment, you are very lucky to live in a country that allows unlimited handouts. Bottom line is, right now I could sign on and basically stay that way until there's a change in the law-I find that scary. Or I could leave my job, have a baby every year for the next 10 years at the tax payers expense and nobody would say 'hang on a minute love..' . How is that a good thing for society, please tell me I would love to know??

We are lucky in this country, but that isn't really much of an argument in favour of making a system more harsh. I'm not entirely sure why you would want it to be more harsh; it's only in the fevered imaginations of the press and the right wing that the treasury is in the grip of benefit fraudsters and immigrants.
You've unwittingly fallen into the same trap as all these people - your argument again shines the light onto the claimants and the people who receive benefits. As if they are the problem. They aren't; this is a rich country the benefits bill isn't a problem; yet people are more concerned about this than they are the billions that are lost to the treasury through creative corporate fraud and tax evasion.
The notion that people pop out legions of kids just to have an easy life (as if!) and get a free house off the social is a complete myth. The only reason single mothers get housing so we don't allow kids to starve to death in the gutters. The idea tht people go out and have kids to get houses is complete !!!!!!!! invented by the likes of The Sun and people like Carole Malone and Kelvine Mackenzie. Why no rhetoric about their hatemongering?

We live in a materialistic wealthy capitalist society that brainwashes people into consumerism because that's how capitalism works. In fact the system depends on unemployment as a means to keep wages low - as I said it's an industry. You can't really blame people then for doing a bit of work on the side while claiming the pittance they get off the dole. In other circles that would be call entrepreneurship and get rewarded. Such double standards. Benefit fraud is at negligable levels - despite what the TV ads with their scary voice might say. Unfortunately they captialise on the bitterness that people have in general about their lot. Bitterness that shoudl be directed toward the state and the elite who control the wealth, the power and make (and break) the rules.

What society should be doing is investing in deprived areas, educating the families there and deepening the culture so as to inspire and broaden the minds. Until then it's really no use complaining about the vulnerable and the poor; people need to direct their anger toward the real spongers and not bemoan some poor sod on a council estate whose only real joy is spending a few quid on cans of lager because life stinks.

wishface

-BA- wrote: »

Sadly this is the exact reason for the majority of responses in this thread. Losing your cool, getting personal or worse it what gets people kicked out of jobcentres. I now see why you were so ready to come to the defense of the OP.

I'm not entirely sure what that means. Perhaps you could explain and make your point more clearly without such prejudice.

wishface

SomeBozo wrote: »

Yet more workshy comments, its amazing how this thread has brought them out!

The government is willing to pay you a modest income, provide for your children (if applicable) and the roof over your head.

In return I don't think its unreasonable to expect some kind of commitment.

Volunteering keeps your CV updated, gets you to meet people, provide possible leads on new jobs and keeps you in the 9-5 work environment.

Bozo

What exactly is a 'workshy comment'?

How is £60/week a modest income? Could you live on it if your wages were so reduced? I bet you'd struggle.

-BA-

wishface wrote: »

I'm not entirely sure what that means. Perhaps you could explain and make your point more clearly without such prejudice.

You seem very keen to bait me so I will humour you for now. I was making an analogy between the offensive comments you made in the post I quoted (ie: your inability to keep your cool on an internet forum where you actually have the chance to preview your post before submitting it) and the reaction people often face when they lose their cool in the jobcentre.

Seeing as this entire thread was about the OP getting removed from the jobcentre (read the title), I would have thought the analogy was pretty clear.

I fail to see any prejudice in my post.

wishface

-BA- wrote: »

I fail to see any prejudice in my post.

"I now see why you were so ready to come to the defense of the OP."

JoeBreakdown

wishface wrote: »

What society should be doing is investing in deprived areas, educating the families there and deepening the culture so as to inspire and broaden the minds. Until then it's really no use complaining about the vulnerable and the poor; people need to direct their anger toward the real spongers and not bemoan some poor sod on a council estate whose only real joy is spending a few quid on cans of lager because life stinks.

Maybe people should be educated to think more carefully about having children, so as not to bring them up in poverty?

Our country, and the planet as a whole is massively over populated and natural resources are streteched to an absolute maximum. While I don't agree that people have children just to get a free house and live on benefits, I think children are a privilage and not a right. People should consider whether they have a means to support a child (or children), before they consider having them.

Probably not very relevent here, but there you are!

Most people out of work are not scroungers, and it is awful when everyone gets tarred with the same brush. However, there are exceptions. My partner and I overheard a young mother talking to her friend on Saturday, telling her how to get out of being sent to interviews etc at the job centre. Stupid thiings like, 'just make sure you're late. Let them see you having a fag beforehand, it's easy!! Made me a little sad.

Nothing to do with the OP's original post though! I do think the heavy handed approach at the job centre was unacceptable, and a lack of communication caused things to get a lot worse than they should have been!