Question Time

StevieJ

michaels wrote: »

Now we disagree, I don't think it should be her choice if other people are going without to pay taxes to support 'her choice' not to take a job just because it was not what she wanted to do. Has it not crossed your mind that the reason she decided not to just carry on being a voluntary helper in the museum and took a different job that was not part of her chosen career path was because she realised it was no longer an option merely to rely on the fruits of other people's toil to support herself.

Not really, because she won her case, maybe she could find a post as a legal advisor to the DWP, because someone has cost the govt (or should I say us) a fair few quid on this whole sorry business

michaels

StevieJ wrote: »

Not really, because she won her case, maybe she could find a post as a legal advisor to the DWP, because someone has cost the govt (or should I say us) a fair few quid on this whole sorry business

I have not read the ruling however the impression I got is that the concept of asking people who have been unemployed for long periods to undertake work experience in order to be eligible for certain benefits was not rejected, but merely that the govt would have to redraft some of the guidance. This was then done the same day and as a result no one who would have been asked to take part in the scheme will now be exempted from it and therefore the 'victory' in the case will not lead to any practical changes on the ground. Thus large sums have been expended to acheive precisely zero effect of consequence.

(Although I agree it is important that all laws are drafted correctly to prevent policies being implemented that were not the intention of our elected representitives when they passed the legislation but in this case the cost /benefit trade off of proving the point does not seem to be positive.)

Out,_Vile_Jelly

I've said before on here; this country has an appallingly bad attitude to those in low-paid and unglamorous jobs. I have two degrees but have done plenty of low end stuff in my time; bar work, cinema usher, data entry, housekeeping (ie making beds and cleaning toilets) etc. The latter was in the US one summer when I was a student- there they really appreciate the earning of an honest dollar, an attitude we would do well to emulate.

If you've done a mucky, boring menial job I'm sure it improves your workplace skills later on; I always make eye contact and smile with cashiers, and say good morning to office cleaners. It shocks me how many people do not. I've worked with many senior people who clearly have no idea how to interact with those paid less than them.

StevieJ

Don't get me wrong I am not opposed to the long term unemployed being asked to do work to prove to prospective employers that they can at least perform the fundamentals. In this instance I would certainly have placed this girl firmly at the back of the queue due to her taking the initiative and performing community service in the Museum. I suppose the test of whether she was successful or not in rebellion will be if the DWP behave differently in the future faced with a similar case? My guess would be yes, what do you think?

Graham_Devon

StevieJ wrote: »

Not really, because she won her case, maybe she could find a post as a legal advisor to the DWP, because someone has cost the govt (or should I say us) a fair few quid on this whole sorry business

The ruling does not state she has a choice to do whatever she likes at taxpayer expense.

The ruling is based upon the wording. The workfare scheme can and will continue. The problem was the wording surrounidng the removal of benefits and how it wasn't fully explained to her.

If she hadn't have got a job, she would have been sent back to workfare at some point in the future. Many people presumably think if they are going to have to work anyway, tey may aswell earn something more from it.

I agree with you on your opening post, it did rather seem the panel viewed the poundland placement as below her, however, I can't agree with the rest of the stuff. We can't simply hand out taxpayer cash because people think a job is below them. It's unfair on those doing those jobs and unfair on the taxpayer too. You appear to have gone full circle from your opening post in suggesting they were wrong to say what they did....into saying the exact same thing in defence of this girl.

I think suggesting she was undertaking community service by doing something she enjoyed is taking things a bit far.

As for treating her differently because of her intelect I find this somewhat disturbing from an equality point of view.

StevieJ

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I've said before on here; this country has an appallingly bad attitude to those in low-paid and unglamorous jobs. I have two degrees but have done plenty of low end stuff in my time; bar work, cinema usher, data entry, housekeeping (ie making beds and cleaning toilets) etc. The latter was in the US one summer when I was a student- there they really appreciate the earning of an honest dollar, an attitude we would do well to emulate.

You just reminded me of a story a Polish friend of mine told me about when he was in the US working as student. He took a job as a life guard at a swimming pool until he found out that that the guy he was working with couldn't even swim :eek: Honest dollar

moneyinmypocket

Nothing wrong with an honest days work

silverchair

StevieJ wrote: »

Is it just me or do other people cringe when the likes of the QT panel talk about demeaning jobs in Poundland? I cannot help but think of those employees who turn up every day to do a job there just to have their efforts undermined

I was just thinking the same thing. It made me feel very uncomfortable. It had the tone of how dare they make a person with a degree work in Poundland, shes better/above that type of job. They also seemed to be applauding her for doing the odd couple of hours in the museum.

What they didnt seem to acknowledge was that she had the 3 years while she was studying for her degree to do that voluntary work to improve her CV. It has a bit of arrogance behind it really. Kind of like, "I have a degree therefore Im better".
She is most welcome to do voluntary work but not at the tax payers expense. Its also not really helping others

A job is a job & gives you a sense of pride. You can learn from all work that you do. Doesnt necessarily have to be directly from the job, but the interactions that you have with people.
I volunteered while studying for my Degree. Ive also worked in lots of different jobs throughout sixth form college & University like shop work, cleaning, catering, working as a waitress & working in an residential home. Unlike the aove example, Im proud to say that Ive done those jobs.

Thrugelmir

StevieJ wrote: »

Not really, because she won her case, maybe she could find a post as a legal advisor to the DWP, because someone has cost the govt (or should I say us) a fair few quid on this whole sorry business

Who funded her appeal. That would be interesting.

Graham_Devon

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Who funded her appeal. That would be interesting.

The taxpayer was. Then lawyers took over I think I read. He parents and her grandparents in the end had to sell her house, as she didn't win and owed hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Not sure what happened after that and how she continued to take it further.

Anyway, my posts have been deleted from this thread, unsure why.