Unemployed to be given 'attitude tests' by Job Centres

dandelionclock30

Theres a fair bit of help available for alcoholics, theres AA,librium detoxs done by the drug/alcohol team at home or in short stay rehab,theres groupwork/counselling, antabuse etc.
Theres not as much money put into helping them as street drug users but they can still get help.Some areas will fund them to go to longer rehab if other options have failed.
The thing is the person has to want to change and if they dont then its a waste of time.

Takeaway_Addict

KevInChester wrote: »

What are your thoughts on:

Bankers being bailed out They had to be bailed out otherwise the whole country would have been ballsed up

MPs fraudulently making expense claims/playing the systemShould be punished accordingly, though I actually think they should be paid something like £250k but all expenses etc should come from this.

A myriad of companies raking in money from the work programme et al but not actually providing anything of value to the tax payer (a net loss) Wrong, I have been approached by work providers to offer this but have refused on the basis I cannot offer a job at the end.

Giving companies like Poundland free labour dressed up as another scheme administered by the companies referred to above
As above
Tax dodging
I'm not against legal avoidance of tax, anyone in their right mind would do the same.

It's not the businesses fault that they can avoid tax, the government need to close loop holes.

It's no different to someone pay 20% being offered a legal way to only pay 10%, no one would refuse.

Evasion on the other hand needs to be dealt with strongly and from what I have seen normally is.
Any one of IDS's crackpot schemes for !!!!ing away money
His record is quite poor isn't it.

Answers above.

BigAunty

There are structural reasons embedded into the very fabric of our economy which means there is always going to be pretty persistent unemployment.

I've taken a keen interest in social and employment policies, benefit changes and the like.

I've been very interested reading articles where the writer makes clear how over time, unemployment is seen as not a normal outcome of our economy but as the result of the psychology of the unemployed, where it was originally an issue that politicians wanted to solve at the societal level but is now blamed on each individual job seeker.

This sounds like part of the finger pointing where unemployment is the result of the attitude of each person.

Dayman

melysion wrote: »

Then you would obviously prefer them to starve. Yep, you need an attitude adjustment.

I now its popular to believe that people on JSA are lazy layabouts but I don't know one person that has the misfortune of being unemployed that fits that description. But the government has to reduce the unemployment figures somehow and if they are incapable of generating more jobs then generating anther sanctioning opportunity will have to do instead

Why don't you read what was put? People who aren't looking for work shouldn't receive JSA.

pinpin

melysion wrote: »

On paper it DOES sound like a good idea. In practice it will just be another tool to punish and bully the unemployed with. Sigh.

I agree.
When I first read about it, I thought, ''that's good''. But the more you think about it, it's just more of the same. Another way to increase sanctions and 'massage the numbers'.

melysion

Dayman wrote: »

Why don't you read what was put? People who aren't looking for work shouldn't receive JSA.

Leaving them to starve. How are you expecting them to feed themselves on thin air? And at what point did you decide being so rude to a complete stranger for no reason at all was acceptable ?

I can't imagine living on £71 a week equates to much living at all. If for some reason someone didn't want to work I'm not going to sweat them getting said £71 a week. It's not as if it's actually an income worth having. Their choice not to work and them being paid JSA regardless doesn't impact on my life and I'd rather not see homeless starving people on the streets.

trollopscarletwoman

melysion wrote: »

Leaving them to starve. How are you expecting them to feed themselves on thin air? And at what point did you decide being so rude to a complete stranger for no reason at all was acceptable ?

I can't imagine living on £71 a week equates to much living at all. If for some reason someone didn't want to work I'm not going to sweat them getting said £71 a week. It's not as if it's actually an income worth having. Their choice not to work and them being paid JSA regardless doesn't impact on my life and I'd rather not see homeless starving people on the streets.

I can see it-you can see it!

Oh well!

CCFC_80

So then anyone having an interview with these government numpties who maybe feeling slightly a bit depressed or showing some negativity about becoming unemployed is likely to face a sanction. Great Decision yet again IDS

theoretica

I think it likely that 'leaving them to starve' would increase the crime rate - and it costs far more than £71 a week to keep someone in prison. Not to mention any increased likelihood of being a victim of crime.

The US's civilian conservation corps seems to have been one of the more successful unemployment schemes I have heard of, but such things wouldn't be right for everyone.

jezebel

“determined”, “bewildered”, “despondent” - is this a version of Kubler-Ross as it sounds more like the stages of being unemployed.

You start out determined to get a new job, then you apply for a few dozen and hear nothing and you're bewildered because really, you thought it would be easier than this and then finally your despondent because there is nothing out there and everyone else seems to think you should really have found something by now.