Working for your benefits

Coeus

patman99 wrote: »

First-off, you don't go back to stage 1 if you only sign off for a month. If you sign off the dole, then sign back on within 6 months it is counted as a 'continuation of claim'.

Coeus, well done in finding work so quickly, however I disagree with your comment about the fact no one should take more the 5 months to find employment.
I spent 16 years, 4 months and 6 days working for the same company before they decided to move abroad and lay us all off. It took me 5 months to re-gain employment (which, thanks to their main customer pulling a large order, only lasted 3 weeks and 2 days).
This despite having a total of 20 years experience in sheetmetal work, 10 years of which have been spent setting/operating cnc machinery.
I have 'Train the trainer' qualifications, a current First Aid certificate, H&S qualifications and can work to/create technical engineering drawings, yet still I have trouble obtaining work.
The ave. hourly rate in my area is £6.50, but to pay my bills I need to earn £7.50 minimum.
As I was stupid enough to buy my own property rather than go for the social housing route, I am unable to simply move into an area with more job prospects. Luckily I will soon be eligable for assistance in becoming self-employed, so have already started to explore potential business ideas.
As for 'workfare', it seems similar to the 'helps' projects run many years ago (apart from the fact that those projects entitled you to claim mileage + extra £10 p/w on top of benefits).

An enlightened and experienced viewpoint - logical and objective. This is the level of discussion that drives progress and understanding.

If you were to hazard a reasonable period, what would you suggest? I understand that every situation is unique but like most government systems they are designed to meet the majority of needs to attain maximum societal benefit. The necessity of a 'fair' period would need to be implemented as standard to make this 'grace period' work on cost-effective nationwide scale.

Feed_The_Reaper

I think this whole made to work thing should be done carefully.....

If you can prove you are applying to companies regularly, by supplying rejection letters or letters of acknowledgment, then you shouldnt be forced to work like this. I think it A - stops you from finding work if you are having to work already and B - is causing you to take away hours per week from someone that the same company could be employing on a proper wage to do.

This should only be brought in for people that are called up after 3 or 6 months and asked who they have tried to seek work with and have no proof of ever trying to find work.
It is people that are happy to sit on the dole and claim it and play Playstation all day it should be targetting, to give them experience and make them work for their money, rather than genuine out of work people that are trying hard to gain employment but are just unable to do so..... its a complication that is just not needed for them!

You also have to consider the wisdom of it when you have, for example, a private firm that has a contract with the council to clean houses or streets. That private company could currently employ 2 or 3 people with a full time wage. What will happen is they may now only hire 1 or 2 people and will make use of 2 or 3 "benefit workers" to make up the numbers. That now means that they have cut their costs probably as they will be offered incentives to take them on, but the workplace has one less full time paid employee in it and one more person now on the job market seeking work.

So you are taking jobs away from people to give them to the jobless! A jobless of which probably 80% of which are now unable to seek work as actively as before because they have to put in a 30 hour week for benefits rather than banging on doors filling in application forms, and having to arrange time off "free work" to attend interviews with a big danger of mistakes being made and benefits cancelled on genuine people!

I am all for getting the lazy back into working for their benefits, if they cant prove they have made any attempt to get work in several weeks or months, but for anyone that can show recent rejection letters, interview appointment letters, etc, to show they are not idly wasting their time but are out there doing whatever they can to get work and off benefits, they should be left well alone and given support to find that work rather than this hindrance!

Its just politicians trying to look good to voters!

hethmar

Im sure everyone is panicking over nothing. The details arent out yet but I feel sure it will not target the genuine, only the long term workshy.

And the jobs wont take anyones work away. They will be posts that volunteers would normally be doing anyway, for zilcho.

Feed the Reaper, as I pointed out above, its really not hard to get rejection letters

dickydonkin

Coeus wrote: »

Seems you have a somewhat biased view. Please read my previous posts thoroughly and objectively. I successfully attained a job at the start of the recession within 3 weeks.

The comment is not crass but from an experienced viewpoint. Either you do not understand the situation or do not wish to.

The lack of basis of evidence for this late on into the recession is true, however that does not mean I cannot draw reasoned conclusions from my earlier experience and later research.

Should you be experiencing difficulty in attaining employment you have my sympathy. However unless you are willing to objectively argue this viewpoint please keep your 'crass' comments to yourself - at least in regard to my posts.

Your crass comment stated that EVERYONE who had not been able to obtain employment within (not before) two years in one of the biggest economic downturns in living memory is deemed a criminal - your words - not mine.

Such a general and sweeping statement did not take into consideration personal circumstances, situations or the lack of jobs.

I congratulate you on obtaining employment before the scale of the downturn became apparent - but don't tar everyone with the same brush and 'criminalise' those who cannot conform to your self imposed timescale for gaining employment.

And I can assure you - I do understand the situation - more sympathetically that some it seems!

Person_one

Feed_The_Reaper wrote: »

I think this whole made to work thing should be done carefully.....

If you can prove you are applying to companies regularly, by supplying rejection letters or letters of acknowledgment, then you shouldnt be forced to work like this. I think it A - stops you from finding work if you are having to work already and B - is causing you to take away hours per week from someone that the same company could be employing on a proper wage to do.

That would require employers to start sending out acknowledgements or rejections. Many just leave you hanging or put 'if you don't hear from us within 6 weeks assume you were unsuccessful' on the advert.

cindy101

ohhh please people WAKEY WAKEY:lipsrseal,, ITS ALREADY HAPPENING BUT :silenced: ,,
ITS CALLED WORKPLACEMENTS,,,

I'm, Doing one now but Not because im on any benefit infact all i get is carers allowance for my disbled son,

but on going to the job center myself as im wanting to work because i always have worked till the company went into recession ,

i was given a workplacement at a major supermarket
job center tell me its the only way they are now hiring anyone,
the manager of said supermarket tells me its the way the government tell them to hire now,,,:undecided

their are LOADS of other people coming in doing it All on jsa except me!

i will be doing 36 1/2 hours this week for NOTHING BUT THE HOPE OF A JOB,,,,

im happy to do it to prove myself as i know im a grafter and infact iv done great and love it,,

my day off today and i cant wait to go in tomorrow night,

jus wish it was paid,, and prey i get the job,, if i dont i tell you all it one big con as i have worked my guts off and wish to continue doing so as its great to get away from the caring and family life for a while,

dont mean that to sound bad but everyone needs some time away from home to get out and do other things love my family dearly but good god even they need to learn to fend for them self sometimes :eek: :rotfl: (sorry fam buts true )

so i dont see this as anything new as in reality it already happening,,

i really cant see it making any difference to the size of the unemployed que tho as its free labor to any company that want to take them on,,,

So Honestly people Before All you hard working people out their who want to sit their and winge about your taxes keeping all these benefit layabouts
start jumping on this as a REALLY GREAT IDEA!!!,
REMEMBER ONE THING,, THE WAY THINGS ARE TODAY NO ONES JOB IS SAFE (NO SUCH THING AS A JOB FOR LIFE ANYMORE REMEMBER THAT)

AND YOU COULD FIND YOURSELF MADE REDUNDANT AND GO TO THE JOB CENTER FOR HELP ONLY TO FIND THE ONLY JOB YOU CAN GET IS 36PLUS HOURS A WEEK FOR NO PAY SLOGGING YOUR GUTS OUT STACKING SHELF NIGHTSHIFT IN A SUPERMARKET,,,,

SOOOO PLEASE REMEMBER I TOLD YOU COS THATS WHERE IS ALL HEADING ,

GOOD LUCK PEEPS WE'R ALL GONNA NEED IT.

Coeus

dpassmore wrote: »

Your crass comment stated that EVERYONE who had not been able to obtain employment within (not before) two years in one of the biggest economic downturns in living memory is deemed a criminal - your words - not mine.

Such a general and sweeping statement did not take into consideration personal circumstances, situations or the lack of jobs.

I congratulate you on obtaining employment before the scale of the downturn became apparent - but don't tar everyone with the same brush and 'criminalise' those who cannot conform to your self imposed timescale for gaining employment.

And I can assure you - I do understand the situation - more sympathetically that some it seems!

If you could please copy and past those 'exact words' where I stated that EVERYONE is deemed a criminal who cannot obtain employment in two years (unsure where this time frame originated from) in the original sentence it were used (in full please) I would be very interested to read it.

Please read my previous posts THOROUGHLY and objectively. I did acknowledge that specific situations do apply but however argued against such a viewpoint as to apply a government scheme nationally servicing each individual circumstance in infeasible and not cost effective. I speak in general terms as I apply to the majority case which is where the Government will decide policy. It is very important you understand this point.

I also acknowledged the lack of jobs as one of my specifically stated assumptions in a previous argument in favour of utilising the JSA claimant workforce for societal benefit until either (i) short-term demand for employment reached a level the government would deem such a policy to now be irrelevant or (ii) the JSA claimant successfully exited the system into employment.

You refer to a self-imposed time-scale. I have noted repeatedly that this is personal experience and highlight that a GOVERNMENT DEEMED time period would be more appropriate. This has been mentioned in most of my posts - please review them thoroughly. Also, unlike how you present your arguments, I aim to be objective in my approaches - this means without bias if you are unsure as your arguments against my views would suggest.

If you do understand the arguments I would encourage an impersonal, objective and logical counter-argument and discussion (leaving out dramatisations would also be appreciated as it is unproductive).

dickydonkin

Person_one wrote: »

That would require employers to start sending out acknowledgements or rejections. Many just leave you hanging or put 'if you don't hear from us within 6 weeks assume you were unsuccessful' on the advert.

Good point.

Many employers don't even inform candidates the outcome of second interviews - let alone applications.

I don't dispute that there are many who just have no desire to work, but there are many good people who for whatever reason, cannot get a job and have been out of work for some time through no fault of their own.

To portray these as 'doleys', 'criminals' and other obnoxious and ridiculous titles on these threads is nothing short of insulting.

dickydonkin

Coeus wrote: »

If you could please copy and past those 'exact words' where I stated that EVERYONE is deemed a criminal who cannot obtain employment in two years (unsure where this time frame originated from) in the original sentence it were used (in full please) I would be very interested to read it.

Please read my previous posts THOROUGHLY and objectively. I did acknowledge that specific situations do apply but however argued against such a viewpoint as to apply a government scheme nationally servicing each individual circumstance in infeasible and not cost effective. I speak in general terms as I apply to the majority case which is where the Government will decide policy. It is very important you understand this point.

I also acknowledged the lack of jobs as one of my specifically stated assumptions in a previous argument in favour of utilising the JSA claimant workforce for societal benefit until either (i) short-term demand for employment reached a level the government would deem such a policy to now be irrelevant or (ii) the JSA claimant successfully exited the system into employment.

You refer to a self-imposed time-scale. I have noted repeatedly that this is personal experience and highlight that a GOVERNMENT DEEMED time period would be more appropriate. This has been mentioned in most of my posts - please review them thoroughly. Also, unlike how you present your arguments, I aim to be objective in my approaches - this means without bias if you are unsure as your arguments against my views would suggest.

If you do understand the arguments I would encourage an impersonal, objective and logical counter-argument and discussion (leaving out dramatisations would also be appreciated as it is unproductive).

Patronising drivel - although I do apologise for confusing your post with AimeesMum - although at least she 'allowed' two years - not a few months as an acceptable timescale to gain employment.

Coeus

dpassmore wrote: »

Patronising drivel - although I do apologise for confusing your post with AimeesMum - although at least she 'allowed' two years - not a few months as an acceptable timescale to gain employment.

This acknowledges about you what I had concluded from your previous posts and presented analytical ability. You have a biased view in the matter and cannot appear to distance yourself from it.

You also cannot seem to grasp the simple concept that my 1 month suggestion was merely that, a suggestion. In addition you continue to ignore my acknowledgement that a Government deemed period would be more appropriate.

I do not believe you can present yourself with objectivity nor possess the analytical ability necessary to effectively counter a logical argument. As such until presented with evidence to the contrary I will not answer any of your further posts - it would be fruitless.

Best for the future,
Coeus.