Channel 4 9pm

Brassedoff

margaretclare wrote: »

Oh great. I didn't mention immigration, disability, ESA or DLA. I confess to not having a master's degree in high economics, but no need to be so damned insulting. 'You didn't expect me to understand that'. I think you may have been responding to someone else rather than me - if so, you've got a bit confused, haven't you? I was simply making the point - referring to the TV programme which was about what happened in 1949 - that I had some claim to know a bit about what went on in those years, having been there.

Sorry, I shouldn't have been so harsh. I would like to say that your posts and point of view, including your experience in the Labour Exchange (is that what they called the job centre?), in the 50's onwards are eye opening. If they applied the same rules today and made people take a job rather than have the option of not taking one would certain ally change people's outlook in the labour market.

margaretclare

Brassedoff wrote: »

Sorry, I shouldn't have been so harsh. I would like to say that your posts and point of view, including your experience in the Labour Exchange (is that what they called the job centre?), in the 50's onwards are eye opening. If they applied the same rules today and made people take a job rather than have the option of not taking one would certain ally change people's outlook in the labour market.

Apology accepted. Where I worked was called the Ministry of Labour and National Service. There was also the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. And there was the National Assistance Board, which dealt with anyone who 'fell through the net' i.e. couldn't claim either unemployment benefit (which we dealt with) or sickness benefit (which the MPNI dealt with).

An excellent historical overview I found is this: http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-41.html

I didn't recognise the name of the organisation featured in the TV series, although I certainly recognised that type of building, and the type of interior that I worked in.

Brassedoff

Bringing the subject back to the post.

Another revelation of a programme this week.

Having watched this week's episode with respect to unemployment benefit. I was staggered by the clan lead by Vanessa.

The terms "this is how we make a living", "I have to get over £600 a week to keep up my lifestyle, why should I work when its free?". She has had a bad back for 15 years, yet showed no signs of having a bad back at all. Then she admitted she had a back problem as she believed was harder to find out if she was putting it on, or words to that affect.

No wonder there are issue for those with real disabilities. There was her, her lad's friend and her mother, all claiming disability benefits and JSA (I thought it would have been ESA, I suppose they were rejected by ATOS)

Then the lad attached to the clan, "other people work, this is just a way to earn my money".

Ashley said that "why should I work, when after 40 hours I get the same as I get now". I was staggered when he said he thought those people in 1949 had less stress. I am only 43, so I am far, far too young to know. I do know my Grandmother (sadly my Granddad was not around having given this country the ultimate sacrifice) and her generation were made of stuff that saw this nation through its most darkest hour. They then had to pull their sleeves up and rebuild this country.

If it was left to the Vanessa's and Ashley, we would all be living in sheds!

margaretclare

Brassedoff wrote: »

Bringing the subject back to the post.

Another revelation of a programme this week.

Having watched this week's episode with respect to unemployment benefit. I was staggered by the clan lead by Vanessa.

The terms "this is how we make a living", "I have to get over £600 a week to keep up my lifestyle, why should I work when its free?". She has had a bad back for 15 years, yet showed no signs of having a bad back at all. Then she admitted she had a back problem as she believed was harder to find out if she was putting it on, or words to that affect.

No wonder there are issue for those with real disabilities. There was her, her lad's friend and her mother, all claiming disability benefits and JSA (I thought it would have been ESA, I suppose they were rejected by ATOS)

Then the lad attached to the clan, "other people work, this is just a way to earn my money".

Ashley said that "why should I work, when after 40 hours I get the same as I get now". I was staggered when he said he thought those people in 1949 had less stress. I am only 43, so I am far, far too young to know. I do know my Grandmother (sadly my Granddad was not around having given this country the ultimate sacrifice) and her generation were made of stuff that saw this nation through its most darkest hour. They then had to pull their sleeves up and rebuild this country.

If it was left to the Vanessa's and Ashley, we would all be living in sheds!

Well, I don't know whether there was more or less stress in 1949 because 'stress' was not a word in common usage. They did use the word 'worry' as in 'I'm worried we shan't have enough to pay the rent' or 'I'm worried about what we'll have to eat'. Mainly, they didn't talk about things, they just did whatever came to hand, whatever they had to do in the short term. They called it 'just getting on with things'. In fact, they didn't talk a lot. For example, those who were bereaved in wartime, or returning soldiers, simply did not talk about what had happened to them.

They were closer to real penury, real hardship, real deprivation simply because there were no benefits at all to speak of up to the start of the Welfare State and even then, as we see in these programmes, the benefits were limited. There would have been no benefit at all for a school-leaver - the idea of leaving school and going straight into benefits would have seemed to them as being so far-fetched as to be laughable almost. There are many instances of children leaving school on Friday and starting work on Monday morning at the coal-mine, the bike factory, the chocolate factory, whatever was local, what they could walk to preferably. I recall my efforts to place women in jobs, this was in the mid-1950s, and how they always objected to 'having to get two buses' i.e. a bus into the city centre then another one out to the factory. Lack of intimate knowledge of the local geography was a disadvantage to me trying to do that job in an unfamiliar city!

I thought it was hard on that woman having to do the recycling job standing up all day. I thought that was a bit unrealistic. Of course she should have been encouraged to return to work, but after 14 years unemployment, straight into a physical job for 8 hours a day standing on her feet? Remember also that 1949 people were much more used to being on their feet, walking everywhere or cycling. even domestic work was much more physical. People now are just not used to being as physical.

A bit later than 1949, but DH and I both left school in 1951 aged 16. I went straight into a junior office job in the nearby city. DH's dad had arranged - without consulting his wishes - an attachment to an accountancy firm he had knowledge of (members of the same synagogue or something). He informed DH of this, and got a flat refusal. DH had done a bit of work experience at an engineering firm and he went there and asked to be taken on. He did a 3-month trial and then was offered an apprenticeship. To his credit, his dad agreed and signed his articles. He might not have done. There are instances recorded of dads 'insisting' that son/daughter did what father commanded. Daughters, particularly, could be refused permission to go on at school because 'a girl is less important, she'll only get married'. Yes, really. I even heard this kind of remark uttered as late as the mid-60s or later.

sheep-ali

My parents wanted me to leave school at 15 in 1966 because " you will only get married anyway ". It was only through the intervention of some of my teachers that I was allowed to do another year and so get " O " grades .
It is one of the major regrets of my life because I was academic.
It is very true that people just got on with it - there was nothing else for it.
I left school on a Friday and started on a Saturday.

teajug

What I noted was the black and white flashbacks the people in them were certainly not obese like the mother and daughter in the program also a fag in her hand and face piercing. Mother certainly had a foul mouth as well. Perhaps the work ethic will hopefully rub off on her children.

What was wrong with making adjustments for the daughter that was forced to the recycling job, she could have had a seat at the recycling belt and could sit and stand whern ever her back was playing her up due to the excess weight she was carrying. Adjustments are made for employees in large supermarkets that we that 'we' the tax payer contribute towards their shareholders profits. :(

time2save

teajug wrote: »

What was wrong with making adjustments for the daughter that was forced to the recycling job, she could have had a seat at the recycling belt and could sit and stand whern ever her back was playing her up due to the excess weight she was carrying. Adjustments are made for employees in large supermarkets that we that 'we' the tax payer contribute towards their shareholders profits. :(

I think the reason for the lack of adjustments was because the show was trying to set itself in the 1949 way and so Reasonable Adjustments were not a legal requirement then. The female benefits officer and the supervisor from the recycling plant said people worked until they dropped off by the pain and how the latter wasn't impressed by the women's need for a break.

It was also for similar reasons why the show doesn't have someone with a mental health condition or other "hidden disability" on it like a genetic condition etc.


time2save

Brassedoff

time2save wrote: »

I think the reason for the lack of adjustments was because the show was trying to set itself in the 1949 way and so Reasonable Adjustments were not a legal requirement then. The female benefits officer and the supervisor from the recycling plant said people worked until they dropped off by the pain and how the latter wasn't impressed by the women's need for a break.

It was also for similar reasons why the show doesn't have someone with a mental health condition or other "hidden disability" on it like a genetic condition etc.


time2save

Yes, they never had so many back then, many things that way lay sufferers today was as margaretclare said " 'stress' was not a word in common usage. They did use the word 'worry' as in 'I'm worried we shan't have enough to pay the rent' or 'I'm worried about what we'll have to eat'. Mainly, they didn't talk about things, they just did whatever came to hand, whatever they had to do in the short term. They called it 'just getting on with things'. Nowadays some many run for the hills with claim form in hand

System

Brassedoff wrote: »

Yes, they never had so many back then, many things that way lay sufferers today was as margaretclare said " 'stress' was not a word in common usage. They did use the word 'worry' as in 'I'm worried we shan't have enough to pay the rent' or 'I'm worried about what we'll have to eat'. Mainly, they didn't talk about things, they just did whatever came to hand, whatever they had to do in the short term. They called it 'just getting on with things'. Nowadays some many run for the hills with claim form in hand

Or they got shipped off to an institution, out of sight out of mind.

time2save

xXMessedUpXx wrote: »

Or they got shipped off to an institution, out of sight out of mind.

Must have been much worse than the workhouse. Well if it's ok for the Queen's MIL and Cousins then...