Working for your benefits

Coeus

dpassmore wrote: »

Look - I understand you feeling the need of a government timescale for gaining employment, but you cannot deny that for whatever reason you decided to suggest your own subjective one - a foolish one in my opinion.

The reality is that any enforced timescale to gain employment just won't work, however, let's not forget that many unemployed people already have a government timescale for obtaining work or at least receiving jobseekers allowance - it is called contribution based JSA - and once your 6 months is up - many people are left to their own devices financially - but that's another debate.

Let me present you with examples as to why any imposed timescale (defined by you or anyone else) is just not realistic.

Many people keep ranting on about the abundance of jobs out there - well yes, there are some - but the majority of those are not suitable for the majority of jobseekers and those that are, it is likely there will be hundreds applying for them. Take out the part time jobs and the options reduce dramatically for many jobseekers.

For sure, a job may exist as a 'sales assistant' in Jane Norman - but a 55 year old male redundant engineer is hardly going to apply for that role as there would be no chance of him even being considered - despite the useless equality laws we have. Does that make that person lazy for not applying for that role ? - of course it doesn't - lazy? - no - realistic? - certainly.

I have proven this point on this very forum before by posting the pages of a popular recruiting website here in the North East (a recognised economic and job blackspot). Many jobs were in the care sector and others were niche roles.

You have suggested a 'one size fits all' timescale of a few months in which YOU believe all unemployed people should have found work.

You did not take into consideration any of the following.

The location of the person out of work - You just cannot realistically suggest someone unemployed in say Teesside will have the same chance of gaining employment as someone in the South East (please note I am not suggesting that everything is green and rosy there either) just that some places are suffering more than others.

The Age of the person out of work - Despite legislation supposedly deeming ageism as illegal in respect of job recruitment - I can assure you it is alive and kicking. So - are you suggesting that a 55 year old who has likely been employed in the same industry for most of his/her working life has exactly the same chance of gaining employment in a restrictive timescale as a 25 year old?

The profession of the person out of work - This is closer to home for me as I am a Health & Safety professional who was made redundant 3 years ago. I am working now, but only intermittently when work is available. Since my redundancy, I have applied for many jobs that were not related to my skills and were just ignored. These included packing in a warehouse, car park attendant and many other similar positions. Of course, I still applied for a safety position, but due to the economic turndown, this 'niche' role was one that many employers were discarding - particularly in the manufacturing sector. There must be many like me who have professions that are not required in the numbers they were.

The industry worked in by the person out of work - I live in relatively more prosperous area of the North East; however, it is common knowledge that over the years, we have been reliant on heavy engineering and manufacturing. Due to successive governments allowing our industries to be transferred to the Far East and Eastern Europe and with steel, shipbuilding and coal mining confined to history, I think it is fair to say we have suffered more than most, but what replaced these jobs were call centres (many now shipped off to India) and low paid service sector jobs. We are also reliant on public sector jobs - many of which will be gone in the coming months. There are many unemployed people in such industries that are just not required anymore – financial restraints do not allow many of these people to be retrained.



So you suggesting that an unemployed person shall be given a specific timescale to gain employment is 'logical'?

I don't believe you can grasp the enormity of the current situation - never mind the government unemployment figures - it is worse than what is being portrayed when other 'financially inactive' people (many on the scrapheap) are taken into consideration. It seems you are living on a different planet - you stated you 'may be out of touch' well your postings have confirmed that assertion.

Now - you keep rabbiting on about being 'objective' therefore I would suggest to you that the above objective comments based purely on facts and figures may cloud your rose tinted spectacled view of the unemployment situation here in the UK - and it will get worse. Every unemployed person has different circumstances and you have not taken into considerstion the key factors that are very relevant when attempting to find a new job - not everyone will be as lucky as you and you should acknowledge that - and not assume everyone is as perfect as yourself. Your comments directed at me are patronising and your views are extremely parochial.

You have also contradicted yourself by demanding 'objective' views that conflict with your own postings by you offering a 'subjective' view on unemployment timescales - make your mind up.

Protracted rant over!

Now this is a stronger, more logical and reasoned argument! However I still find issue with some of your posts.

Concerning my own opinion regarding a time scale. Offering views and opinion if nothing but to gauge a response from your peers is invaluable and not foolish. It would have been foolish not to acknowledge any personal opinion would be subjective and hence biased - however I did such and offered a compromise to maintain objectivity on the issue. My 1 month suggestion was subjective and based on personal experience hence biased. This was the exact reason I advocated a GOVERNMENT DEEMED period so as to remove any bias I may have introduced.

I largely consider the individual circumstances of peoples or region whether location/age/profession or industry irrelevant as far as determining macro government policy on the issue. The logistics necessary to cater individually whether peoples or regional based would (i) likely be too ineffective to operate and (ii) create 'friction' between neighbouring regions with different policy. I still advocate a 'one size fits all' GOVERNMENT DEEMED period.

I do not have knowledge of your experiences nor have your arguments convinced my that you are able you to accurately judge how 'out of touch' I may be with unemployment issue. I personally consider you to be wanting in relation to your understanding of the logistics necessary for running a nationwide government policy - however opinions such that you have stated of myself and my own about you are subjective. I would not apply them to an argument to maintain the appearance of objectivity. Hence I ignore my opinion of you in this matter as biased and irrelevant - I ask you to do the same. You do not know me and I do not know you. We should not pretend any other.

Your stated facts and figures are not convincing nor do I believe them to be well founded. Applying personal knowledge to the stated facts and figures has not helped to convince me that these are nothing but biased. I do accept however that regional availability, age discrimination can, profession and industry can affect employment opportunities. Again however these are the micro views that largely become irrelevant when deciding macro government policy.

I do not consider myself to be perfect and I would ask you to refrain from applying your personal assumptions about me within these arguments - the image of objectivity is disrupted. Does this person want to disagree with me just because he/she views me as perfect? This is the sort of question I ask myself to then assess whether the persons personal bias is impeding their ability to evaluate their own position.

It is discouraging to me that you see this as a rant - are you emotionally invested in your viewpoint? I am quite enjoying the issue of debate and reviewing the evolution of your and my arguments.

dickydonkin

Coeus OK - Truce.

I think we have both believed that we have justified our arguments on this topic and I think it is fair for me to suggest that we perhaps have to agree to disagree on many aspects of our points of view.

The points I referred to in respect of the need to consider the person, locality, age and availability of work when jobseeking is based purely on fact and EXPERIENCE. Sure, I could hit a search engine and produce figures, but I know I don't need to do that as the four points I have raised are generally accepted as fact and if you could disprove any of them, please enlighten me.

Your stated facts and figures are not convincing nor do I believe them to be well founded

Disprove them - however, you then go on to state;

I do accept however that regional availability, age discrimination can, profession and industry can affect employment opportunities.

Yet those are the significant points of my argument and you accept them - very confusing!

Applying personal knowledge to the stated facts and figures has not helped to convince me that these are nothing but biased.

Yes - there is an element of personal knowledge - supported with personal experience - and although you may perceive my statetments as being biased, they are factual nonetheless - it is all well and good applying accusations of bias, but without you being able to elaborate as to why you believe the statements are not 'well founded, then such accusations are meaningless. After all, may I remind you that you asked me to provide evidence to substantiate elements of my previous post - I believe I have done that in a fair and factually correct manner.

As I alluded to earlier, they are based not only on assumption, but (more importantly) on experience of jobseeking in a recession and living in an area that is now bereft of it's traditional industrial base. Swan Hunter, British Steel, British Coal, Corus to name just a few. These industries were replaced by call centres and low paid service jobs. Of course I appreciate the North East is not unique in this respect, but it is pretty bleak in respect of the jobs market right now.


You have asked me to 'refrain from making personal assumptions' about you - I would ask you to do the same.

I personally consider you to be wanting in relation to your understanding of the logistics necessary for running a nationwide government policy

It would appear that the previous and current 'government' seem 'wanting' as well - judging by the country's current plight!

I would suspect that the vast majority of posters on here would fall into the same category. I vote for people to devise and implement government policies - that is what Government officials get paid for - I don't profess to understand the procedures for their implementation and workings - that is why I work in the H&S profession - not as an MP.

Again, I think we will have to agree to disagree, but I am clear in my mind that the points I have raised based on facts and experience - not theories - are true, however, I am sure others will come on here and share their views or experiences which may or may not prove or disprove our own personal viewpoints.

It is certainly an interesting debate, although others may suggest (as a previous poster has) that you may have projected your arguments in a supercilious and polysyllabic manner, however, it has been fascinating nonetheless.

dickydonkin

cindy101 wrote: »

see this is my worry "is it a really a way for employers to to get the staff they want?
or is it just free labour"?

i feel a bit of both really but i know if i do get the job i will want all or any overtime i can get even prepared to work xmas day ((((I GOT BILLS, AND NEED NEW FRIDGE,NEW MATTRESS,NEW DINNING SET,AND COUNTLESS OTHER STUFF)))
SO IM REALLY WANTIMG ALL THE WORK THEY GOT,
But if i get it my guess is i wont be able to have much overtime as they will still have all the people on JSA coming in for free so why pay me to do more when free labour is readily available,, edit to say,
this is why staff moral is so low right now within the store as i have spoken to people their whoi really would like an extra day as week with xmas coming up but theirs no chance of that when we slaves are all coming though tick and fast,

My worry would be is that you would be working for free over the busy Christmas period and then be deemed surplus to requirement in the relatively slack periods in the new year.

Certainly your enthusiasm is an inspiration and based on your posts, if I was the manager, I would give you a contract here and now!

I would not worry about what other people think - just keep your head down hope for the best.

It does not change my views on what the company are doing - quite frankly it's disgusting - but as you are prepared to do what you are doing without pay - and doing it well seemingly, I just hope you are rewarded with the job you deserve.

Good Luck!