We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Help to Work Programme comes in today
Comments
-
specialboy wrote: »If they have been out of work for 2 years then they should be expected to up their game and attend more often but I do think every day is a little much.
Recruiters need to up their game. And the government needs to make them - if they're serious about "helping people back to work". Positive discrimination legislation would go a long way towards this aim.
Shortening NHS waiting times would also help. Receiving prompt diagnosis and timely treatment enabling people to once again be able to work.
Correct me if I'm wrong but many "long-term unemployed" are actually ill or disabled. Some are indeed capable of work - perhaps part-time in some cases. Obtaining work sadly remains elusive. The media portrayal of most sickness benefit claminats as frauds and fakes doesn't help, but regardless of this many employers do not want to employ someone with health issues.
Other long-term unemployed have fallen into a trap - caused, ironically, by desperate attempts to work and not claim benefits. Taking any job possible leaves those who do possess qualifications and experience being labelled as "flighty". A series of low-paid temporary roles on a CV frequently lead to it being thrown straight into the bin by recruiters. A vicious circle for the applicant.
And of course now there's no need for many minimum wage roles to be advertised. Companies can simply get someone in to work for free. And so we see higher unemployment and more redundancies - less paid roles around and the resulting continued unemployment for those unlucky enough to have experienced redundancy or illness.0 -
I can see why charities would not want to be involved. People out of work for over two years are not going to be be the pick of the crop whichever way you look at it, but if after that time they are still needing to be forced to attend, they'll pretty much all be more trouble than they are worth.
It's a shame, as people could use the benefits that regularly attending a workplace brings, but you can't expect unrelated charities to harm their work by taking on those who don't want to be there.
It's precisely that discrimatory (and offensive) attitude that keeps people long-term unemployed! Yes, there exist those who don't want to work or aren't capable without further help - be it training or experience. That doesn't make it true for all others currently claimants out of work benefits.
There's a variety of reasons someone ends up out of work for 2 years (or longer). Caring for a friend or relative, illness, disability, a traumatic life event, time out to study or travel for example. And then there are those people who are made redundant and find themselves overlooked by recruiters. Perhaps they're "too old" or "over-qualified" or "too experienced for the role" or their previous role and/or industry is in decline. Or maybe they have "too many" short-term roles on their CV (doing whatever it takes to stay employed and off benefits).
And many people (including those currently unemployed) would love to volunteer with a charity. But the need to pay the rent or mortgage, bills, and other essentials makes this an unaffordable luxury - at least full-time and long-term.
It's a good idea to offer experience in a voluntary or unpaid role (whether with a charity or any other employer) for a short period, especially for those who do lack work experience - young people who haven't worked before or people who have been out of the workplace for a very long time. Long-term, real paid work is necessary for anyone without significant savings.0 -
Recruiters need to up their game. And the government needs to make them - if they're serious about "helping people back to work". Positive discrimination legislation would go a long way towards this aim.
No, it would mean that we'd be forced to take on the wrong people. It'd be a terrible idea.
Employers are rational people, we want the best candidates, and will happily take on an unemployed person if they were the best for the job.
Given the ability to pay unemployed less (in my business there's no guaranteed bonus needed to attract a candidate who is not working), it'd be lunacy to discount them, so we don't.0 -
Worst excuse ever...
How do you suggest someone pays for a passport when they're receiving less to live on per week than it costs to obtain a new passport?
Some people are more fortunate. They have savings, or a friend or relative who can help them with this cost. Not everyone is so lucky.0 -
If i were one of those being told i had to attend the Jobcentre every day i'm sure as already been said many would be happy to do so if there was a proper paid job at the end of it, but while i was only getting JS allowance my main worry would be ............. ' How do i get there'
All over the Country local Jobcentres have closed, if you can't drive and live several miles away with poor public transport, and then with the threat of sanctions hanging over you if you're not there on time.
Perhaps IDS and Esther McVey will give the people who are working for free their taxi fare.
Perhaps this is one of the ways the unemployment figure will go down.... More jobcentres opened and more staff? I won't hold my breath...
Incidentally, when I renewed my passport about a year ago I was warned of long delays due to.....redundancies! The government puts people on unemployment benefit and then castigates them for their predicament!0 -
-
No, it would mean that we'd be forced to take on the wrong people. It'd be a terrible idea.
Employers are rational people, we want the best candidates, and will happily take on an unemployed person if they were the best for the job.
Given the ability to pay unemployed less (in my business there's no guaranteed bonus needed to attract a candidate who is not working), it'd be lunacy to discount them, so we don't.
I'm not suggesting employers take on the "wrong person". Positive discrimination for unemployed candidates should operate in the same way as it does (in theory) for disabled candidates - where applicants who meet the job specification and have the required experience and qualifications (even if there is a 2-year gap) are prioritised over employed candidates.
Good for your company for not overlooking unemployed candidates. Sadly many do. I've witnessed this first-hand when a colleague dismissed CVs that lacked recent (paid) work experience.
Not everyone has a stable CV - and this is not always because they are unemployable. Does your company take on people with gaps on their CV due to illness? Do you turn down people for being "over-qualified" or "too experienced"? Even if they might want a career change and are willing to start from the bottom? What about people who've had caring responsibilites? Or someone who after a redundancy used their pay-out to take time out - to reassess their life and career goals?
To reassure employers there should be a trial period. Many companies do this as a matter of course for any new recruit. Even if it was a short-term, i.e. 2 to 4 weeks, unpaid trial period. That should give the employer (and applicant) sufficient time to see whether they were able to perform the role effectively.0 -
I disagree. In some cases (a couple of people on here spring to mind), it's purely a refusal to work which is the issue. In their case punishment would be exactly the right route to take.
And for the long term unemployed who don't have this attitude? The long term unemployed that really want to work - i.e. 99.9% of them? Do they deserve to be punished too?
There are so many reasons why someone might be long term unemployed - and no, its not always because they are less capable, or not the cream of the crop. Its often because they are in the ¨too old¨ or ¨too experienced¨ bracket after redundancy - and quite often both. And its not always the less capable that are made redundant in the first place don't forget - quite often it is the oldest, or the most expensive, rather than the useless.
A little empathy can go a long way. Life isn't always black and white.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards