I don't know what to make of this. Well I do, actually, it's from the Daily Express (and the Mail picked it up as well) so it's probably bunkum. Or at least a fantastic distortion of the facts.
I suspect at the heart of this is again the JObcentre's fascination with sending anyone to any job, regardless of what the employee actually wabnts. I have already hinted at how they change or distort requirements when advertising a position submitted to them. I think that's what's happened here.
Certainly tghere are some scummy kids out there. Unfortunately. I know because I 've been on the receiving end of their behaviour, particularly when returning from a hospital visit to see a relative dying of pneumonia. But there are, we must all concede, some decent kids out there. But they are all kids; the good ones should be supported while the others should be recognised for being failed by their environment and the system they are in (including their parents, for whom the same can be said). My point: putting school leavers up for a full time farm job they are not interested in isn't going to end well.
This is what happens when you marshal people into the wrong job. People are individual with individual needs but the welfare system simply fails to recognise this. So these people will have been submitted for this job, on pain of sanction, and lo and behold they are unsuitable. This of course says nothing about the boss in question whom I suspect may be a bit intolerant of this and another of these 'pull yer socks' up types completely unwilling to accept people can't just go from unemployed to full time farm work in a flash. More fool him if he's inflexible, farm work is difficult and hard. It's a vocation not a job you can just push people into so as to satisfy the government's need for welfare reform.
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
The Thinking of Idiots - a quick rant
I used to be a member of the moneysavingexpert.com site forums until I was banned for telling the right wing trolls, rather unceremoniously, where to go. Aside from the appalling level of fascist (there's no more apt a descriptor) trolling it's a decent enough forum. There are just too few sensibly minded individuals. However I occasionally visit the benefit discussion forums; consequently I discovered this fine example of the thinking of idiots.
Now how can the JC expect someone to accept a jobwhere they have to walk 13 miles home after a shift? This is patently absurd. Yet the high minded keyboard judiciary that dominate both that site and, increasingly it seems, the national mood seem to believe that's perfectly reasonable, and that being sanctioned as a result of refusing such conditions is perfectly acceptable. I don't think it is. More and more we are racing to the bottom. More and more we are being compelled, by means of such insidious standards, to accept these kinds of ridiculous standards. 13 miles is a half marathon! Expecting people to just take that in their stride is bonkers, plain bonkers. If that's the only work available then why should the individual be penalised for it because he can't do it? Ridiculous.
What annoyed me the most is the mention of a 'can do attitude'. Yet again the great and the good use simple minded platitudes to dominate discussion while simultaneously dismissing it: 'pull your socks up' and 'stop feeling sorry for yourself'. We've all heard these things (well I certainly have!) time and time again. They mean nothing; they are empty statements whose sole purpose isn't to inspire by deign of tough love, but to dismiss you. People can't face the reality of the circumstances of another it seems. These people cannot accept this individual just can't do this job and that penalising him - far from being productive - is equally unreasonable, so they dismiss it. Out of hand; 'you need a can do attitude'.
Now how can the JC expect someone to accept a jobwhere they have to walk 13 miles home after a shift? This is patently absurd. Yet the high minded keyboard judiciary that dominate both that site and, increasingly it seems, the national mood seem to believe that's perfectly reasonable, and that being sanctioned as a result of refusing such conditions is perfectly acceptable. I don't think it is. More and more we are racing to the bottom. More and more we are being compelled, by means of such insidious standards, to accept these kinds of ridiculous standards. 13 miles is a half marathon! Expecting people to just take that in their stride is bonkers, plain bonkers. If that's the only work available then why should the individual be penalised for it because he can't do it? Ridiculous.
What annoyed me the most is the mention of a 'can do attitude'. Yet again the great and the good use simple minded platitudes to dominate discussion while simultaneously dismissing it: 'pull your socks up' and 'stop feeling sorry for yourself'. We've all heard these things (well I certainly have!) time and time again. They mean nothing; they are empty statements whose sole purpose isn't to inspire by deign of tough love, but to dismiss you. People can't face the reality of the circumstances of another it seems. These people cannot accept this individual just can't do this job and that penalising him - far from being productive - is equally unreasonable, so they dismiss it. Out of hand; 'you need a can do attitude'.
Monday, 26 September 2011
Notes on JC + Adverts
I'm sure this will be an ongoing series. It's been clear to me for a while that there is something amiss in the processes used by the DWP to advertise the vacancies they receive. Some of these, in fact most, are sourced from recruitment agencies, specifically sites online. This is evident in the formatting errors caused by directly copying the text from the screen. Copy and paste from the site's page and into Word/Notepad and you can see how disjointed the text is.
Last I signed on I was given a part time admin vacancy to apply for, even though, net, my income would be no more than a few quid above the JSA. (What's the bloody point? How does that help me?) I rang up when I got home and the relevant contact was on a week's holiday. So I have just rung again (I don't want the job at all, I'm not remotely interested in admin nor do I have experience thereof) only to find that the job isn't, as the advert says, 'experience preferred'; it's experience required. I sounded rather sheepish on the phone as i had to admit that I have no experience of this at all. I tried to explain that this is what the JC does (as opposed to being perceived as blaming the employer, which I don't).
So be warned: I believe the JC also subtly change the words, and thus conditions, the employer wants. Of course I can't prove this so I'm on shaky ground here, but why else do these adverts get it wrong? We all know of such examples I'm sure. They may think they are doing this for the right reasons, but the end result is a pissed off employer and a claimant on thin ice whose time has been wasted.
Last I signed on I was given a part time admin vacancy to apply for, even though, net, my income would be no more than a few quid above the JSA. (What's the bloody point? How does that help me?) I rang up when I got home and the relevant contact was on a week's holiday. So I have just rung again (I don't want the job at all, I'm not remotely interested in admin nor do I have experience thereof) only to find that the job isn't, as the advert says, 'experience preferred'; it's experience required. I sounded rather sheepish on the phone as i had to admit that I have no experience of this at all. I tried to explain that this is what the JC does (as opposed to being perceived as blaming the employer, which I don't).
So be warned: I believe the JC also subtly change the words, and thus conditions, the employer wants. Of course I can't prove this so I'm on shaky ground here, but why else do these adverts get it wrong? We all know of such examples I'm sure. They may think they are doing this for the right reasons, but the end result is a pissed off employer and a claimant on thin ice whose time has been wasted.
Sunday, 25 September 2011
Every Little Helps - the end
Like all good trilogies, this one goes up to 3; here are my closing feelings on Tesco with a few observations having seen at last their new shop. It opened a few days ago with a nice photoshoot for the local press. I had a look but didn't go in (couldn't as they were too busy being snapped). Straight away I notice that the makeup of the staff (or at least those wheeled out for the camera) are mainly young women. There was a manager type gentleman in a tie whom I suspect was an area manager. Looks like Tesco have hired young mums, older mums and students/wives. This wasn't a career opportunity. People that don't need more than the NMW.
Second point to make is that there is already a shop down the road. I've mentioned them before. I have to say that I feel for them. Theirs isn't the best shop, but they've been royally screwed. All the passing trade is going to be taken by Tesco who are on the same side of the road and, inexplicably, have been given permission for Lottery and cashpoint over them, and indeed the other village convenience store. Now if the decision makers in these processes don't take into account existing businesses and are happy to throw them onto the dole then some thing's wrong. This is no exception. Tesco is now open from 7-10 every day! This is not the norm for a village store. How can small businesses compete with that?
I had my first venture within this morning. It's a typical Tesco Express. It offers more than the local shops and forces the local community to choose convenience over community. That, it seems, is modern society in a nutshell. They are here to stay, there's no way they won't get trade, even if it's passing trade - or just a quick scratchcard when visiting the ATM. I also worry this going to be a magnet for local yobs that enjoy boozing it up at the local kids play area. Are Tesco really going to care about that? Their staff aren't people from the communtiy that I recognise (which isn't to say I know everyone of course).
One final point is that, on my way out, I noticed there were a couple of young women sweeping leaves from the entrance. Both were north African in appearance - as far as my untrained eye goes. They could be British born, but they were both of immigrant extraction. One was talking on her phone in a different language. Now the point I'm making is that they were a completely different demographic than the rest of the staff: middle aged women! Immediately I'm wondering just what Tesco's employment priorities and principles are. I'm willing to be those two are just there to do that for a job, they won't be managing the shop and probably not working in it. Is this cheap labour because they happen to be (possibly) immigrants?
So what's the point: I was compelled to apply to this shop by the Jobcentre. They didn't care that the shop represents a very real threat to the established community and the families that work in those shops. They don't' care what Tesco did to get that pitch and the permission to run lottery, cashpoints and to sell beer, and they don't really seem to care that Tesco aren't hiring people for the best interests of the community.
This is not how we improve society.
Second point to make is that there is already a shop down the road. I've mentioned them before. I have to say that I feel for them. Theirs isn't the best shop, but they've been royally screwed. All the passing trade is going to be taken by Tesco who are on the same side of the road and, inexplicably, have been given permission for Lottery and cashpoint over them, and indeed the other village convenience store. Now if the decision makers in these processes don't take into account existing businesses and are happy to throw them onto the dole then some thing's wrong. This is no exception. Tesco is now open from 7-10 every day! This is not the norm for a village store. How can small businesses compete with that?
I had my first venture within this morning. It's a typical Tesco Express. It offers more than the local shops and forces the local community to choose convenience over community. That, it seems, is modern society in a nutshell. They are here to stay, there's no way they won't get trade, even if it's passing trade - or just a quick scratchcard when visiting the ATM. I also worry this going to be a magnet for local yobs that enjoy boozing it up at the local kids play area. Are Tesco really going to care about that? Their staff aren't people from the communtiy that I recognise (which isn't to say I know everyone of course).
One final point is that, on my way out, I noticed there were a couple of young women sweeping leaves from the entrance. Both were north African in appearance - as far as my untrained eye goes. They could be British born, but they were both of immigrant extraction. One was talking on her phone in a different language. Now the point I'm making is that they were a completely different demographic than the rest of the staff: middle aged women! Immediately I'm wondering just what Tesco's employment priorities and principles are. I'm willing to be those two are just there to do that for a job, they won't be managing the shop and probably not working in it. Is this cheap labour because they happen to be (possibly) immigrants?
So what's the point: I was compelled to apply to this shop by the Jobcentre. They didn't care that the shop represents a very real threat to the established community and the families that work in those shops. They don't' care what Tesco did to get that pitch and the permission to run lottery, cashpoints and to sell beer, and they don't really seem to care that Tesco aren't hiring people for the best interests of the community.
This is not how we improve society.
Sunday, 18 September 2011
Every Little Helps Part 2
I never (as yet) heard back from Tesco. Thankfully. I do not want to contribute to the demise of my village. Not that the DWP would care, I imagine. The private sector is the great and holy saviour.
A quick trip in light showers of an early Autumn evening to stock up on Minstrels and I got chatting with the one local shop that's most in danger from this new development. They are on the same side of the main road (that runs through the village) but a little ways down. As such they are particularly reliant on passing trade. Well that's seriously going to be curtailed.
The manager isn't happy.
He points out, and I've noticed, they're advertising cash machine and lottery facilities - while the planning permission for these has yet to be granted. Another local shop applied for a cash machine to be fitted and was refused. That shop ain't Tesco. He tells me that he's been waiting 6 years to get a lottery point. It seems that he can't have one because there is another shop that does the lottery and they'd have to concede ownership. That's not unreasonable given the size of the population and that shop (the same as wanted to put in the cash machine). But these shops ain't Tesco.
So am I to be forced to work for a company that's going to be responsible for putting others, family business all (without exception), out of work? Where does the private sector draw the line? Doesn't the government care? I thought they were all about small enterprise? Perhaps not when it's Tesco.
A quick trip in light showers of an early Autumn evening to stock up on Minstrels and I got chatting with the one local shop that's most in danger from this new development. They are on the same side of the main road (that runs through the village) but a little ways down. As such they are particularly reliant on passing trade. Well that's seriously going to be curtailed.
The manager isn't happy.
He points out, and I've noticed, they're advertising cash machine and lottery facilities - while the planning permission for these has yet to be granted. Another local shop applied for a cash machine to be fitted and was refused. That shop ain't Tesco. He tells me that he's been waiting 6 years to get a lottery point. It seems that he can't have one because there is another shop that does the lottery and they'd have to concede ownership. That's not unreasonable given the size of the population and that shop (the same as wanted to put in the cash machine). But these shops ain't Tesco.
So am I to be forced to work for a company that's going to be responsible for putting others, family business all (without exception), out of work? Where does the private sector draw the line? Doesn't the government care? I thought they were all about small enterprise? Perhaps not when it's Tesco.
Friday, 16 September 2011
The Report
Last night there was a broadcast on radio 4's The Report (a show I've never before heard) about the Work Programme. You can find it on the iplayer; it was broadcast at 8pm.
I'm not going to discuss the programme in depth, suffice to say that one of the talking heads was my favourite Pauline-a-like, Hayley Taylor. I have zero respect for this awful human being and here laughable brassy northern brand of pop psychology. Interestingly though it transpires that she resigned from her job as arch single parent botherer at A4E, claiming that "I couldn't do this anymore". Apparently she realised how flawed their programme was.
What's interesting is that she felt it acceptable to quit her job (presumably because she had the money to do so and TV supsterstardom beckoned) yet can't accord that same freedom to others. For a month out she hectored and pilloried people on Fairy Jobmother, promoting tired cliches and values steeped in irrelevance and nostalgia, now here she is giving up.
Had that been someone in my position, or someone on the Work Programme, or trying to reclaim their JSA, they'd reap merry hell for that attitude.
I'm not going to discuss the programme in depth, suffice to say that one of the talking heads was my favourite Pauline-a-like, Hayley Taylor. I have zero respect for this awful human being and here laughable brassy northern brand of pop psychology. Interestingly though it transpires that she resigned from her job as arch single parent botherer at A4E, claiming that "I couldn't do this anymore". Apparently she realised how flawed their programme was.
What's interesting is that she felt it acceptable to quit her job (presumably because she had the money to do so and TV supsterstardom beckoned) yet can't accord that same freedom to others. For a month out she hectored and pilloried people on Fairy Jobmother, promoting tired cliches and values steeped in irrelevance and nostalgia, now here she is giving up.
Had that been someone in my position, or someone on the Work Programme, or trying to reclaim their JSA, they'd reap merry hell for that attitude.
Busyness
Today's signing was at another completely different time. The usual advisor is on holiday so I had to regularly sign on with the proles - no special treatment for me! :D
Really just the usual nonsense. I keep a jobsearch record, as I'm expected to, it gets signed off after being examined each time I sign. So before anything else I had to tell them that I had applied for the jobs on the list the advisor called up. Of course I could have just said yes anyway, she wouldn't know. She then tells me I have to keep a record; which I do and have done. She signs off on the record as usual.
Then we have the usual search on the system. What the point of this is I don't know. I have just shown her the record of jobs I've applied for, I've also just looked on the jobpoint, not to mention this is all stuff I have to do anyway. If you aren't going to believe that I've done my part there is little point having a conversation about it.
Now I have a problem (one of many): my agreed hours have previously been reduced to 20 not 40. This was done because it was felt this would be more beneficial given my problems. Unfortunately because of the way the agreement works, I am now beholden to this. The problem being that I can't afford to work for 20 hours a week because it costs too much to travel anywhere. So I now find myself being 'offered' jobs during the search that I, according to the agreement, should be able to do. Great.
You see these advisers, particularly the one I've just seen (hooray for library pc access), can't see into the reality of the situation. Rules are rules. So if I were to point out that 20 hours + bus fare = not enough to live on, I cause some kind of systemic anomaly, that just creates all sorts of problems in the minds of JC+ staff. This just makes my life even harder. For instance a job in Primark appeared for 20 hours as a sales assistant. Now I don't know about any other branch of Primark but the one in question is a fucking nightmare. It's so busy in that place. The jobcentre already knows that busy places are problematic for me, and in fact it's supposed to have been recorded on the system by my normal advisor (whether it is or not, I have no idea). I point this out and I can see the brow furrowing, confusion is increasing with the potential for indignation and the possibility of 'but this is what you've agreed to'. Fortunately this gets headed off as she agrees to discuss this with my normal advisor (discuss what? that's how i am. What do you suggest? DWP psychotherapy?).
You see it's the system; these people are too often like automatons. The rules are the rules; there in black and white. If it says 20 hours then come what may this is what you must apply for. You've also agreed to retail work (even though i have zero choice because you have to pick 3 categories of 'suitable' work). Therefore 1 +1 = Primark! You can't win! There's no room for dealing with people as individuals, taking the time to deal with their problems in the best way at whatever pace is required. Increasingly I just find I'm again running on that treadmill and increasingly the pace is greater and greater; I'm struggling to keep from falling off.
Really just the usual nonsense. I keep a jobsearch record, as I'm expected to, it gets signed off after being examined each time I sign. So before anything else I had to tell them that I had applied for the jobs on the list the advisor called up. Of course I could have just said yes anyway, she wouldn't know. She then tells me I have to keep a record; which I do and have done. She signs off on the record as usual.
Then we have the usual search on the system. What the point of this is I don't know. I have just shown her the record of jobs I've applied for, I've also just looked on the jobpoint, not to mention this is all stuff I have to do anyway. If you aren't going to believe that I've done my part there is little point having a conversation about it.
Now I have a problem (one of many): my agreed hours have previously been reduced to 20 not 40. This was done because it was felt this would be more beneficial given my problems. Unfortunately because of the way the agreement works, I am now beholden to this. The problem being that I can't afford to work for 20 hours a week because it costs too much to travel anywhere. So I now find myself being 'offered' jobs during the search that I, according to the agreement, should be able to do. Great.
You see these advisers, particularly the one I've just seen (hooray for library pc access), can't see into the reality of the situation. Rules are rules. So if I were to point out that 20 hours + bus fare = not enough to live on, I cause some kind of systemic anomaly, that just creates all sorts of problems in the minds of JC+ staff. This just makes my life even harder. For instance a job in Primark appeared for 20 hours as a sales assistant. Now I don't know about any other branch of Primark but the one in question is a fucking nightmare. It's so busy in that place. The jobcentre already knows that busy places are problematic for me, and in fact it's supposed to have been recorded on the system by my normal advisor (whether it is or not, I have no idea). I point this out and I can see the brow furrowing, confusion is increasing with the potential for indignation and the possibility of 'but this is what you've agreed to'. Fortunately this gets headed off as she agrees to discuss this with my normal advisor (discuss what? that's how i am. What do you suggest? DWP psychotherapy?).
You see it's the system; these people are too often like automatons. The rules are the rules; there in black and white. If it says 20 hours then come what may this is what you must apply for. You've also agreed to retail work (even though i have zero choice because you have to pick 3 categories of 'suitable' work). Therefore 1 +1 = Primark! You can't win! There's no room for dealing with people as individuals, taking the time to deal with their problems in the best way at whatever pace is required. Increasingly I just find I'm again running on that treadmill and increasingly the pace is greater and greater; I'm struggling to keep from falling off.
Thursday, 15 September 2011
Welfare Dependency
I'm sick of hearing about this. It's a myth. Another lie perpetuated by the corrupt capitalist state to blame the unemployed for theirs and everyone else's problems in the economy. Everyone wtihin a capitalist system is dependent; they are dependent on either benefits, welfare or their employer paying them - and we all know how insecure that can be, laws or otherwise. People out of work are portrayed in this fashion as one might describe someone as dependent on drugs.
The capitalist system has long disenfranchised the people from the means to support themselves and has made them dependent on money/income. I can't grow my own food in any meaningful way. I certainly can't farm meat, make my own clothes or prepare medicines. Where once communities and individuals did just this. Now they don't. You want food you have to pay for it whether unemployed or otherwise. Where that money comes from is irrelevant because the effect of its withdrawal is the same. People can claim that it's different if they work for their money are deluded. It's the same; you are still dependent. Would you work for free? How would you feel if your employer decided to reduce your pay to £65 a week: the rate of Jobseeker's Allowance? Capitalism thrives on this dependency and unemployment keeps wages down. This government certainly doesn't want complete employment, as if that were ever an achievable goal. So the unemployed are beloved of the private sector as the means to drive down wages, much in the same way as immigration.
I'm sick of this notion of life on benefits as some kind of twilight existence. The only reason its unpleasant is because the state doesn't want people to be free. They don't want people to think for themselves. If they did they'd realise how much bullshit they were being fed everyday in the media, how pointless their jobs and targets are, and how false and conceited their politicians are. Consequently, benefits are set low and kept low along with increasing and punitive threats against those who don't play the game. Yet this contract, the deal people are supposed to have with society is never a two way deal. It's do what the state says and not how can we help.
The capitalist system has long disenfranchised the people from the means to support themselves and has made them dependent on money/income. I can't grow my own food in any meaningful way. I certainly can't farm meat, make my own clothes or prepare medicines. Where once communities and individuals did just this. Now they don't. You want food you have to pay for it whether unemployed or otherwise. Where that money comes from is irrelevant because the effect of its withdrawal is the same. People can claim that it's different if they work for their money are deluded. It's the same; you are still dependent. Would you work for free? How would you feel if your employer decided to reduce your pay to £65 a week: the rate of Jobseeker's Allowance? Capitalism thrives on this dependency and unemployment keeps wages down. This government certainly doesn't want complete employment, as if that were ever an achievable goal. So the unemployed are beloved of the private sector as the means to drive down wages, much in the same way as immigration.
I'm sick of this notion of life on benefits as some kind of twilight existence. The only reason its unpleasant is because the state doesn't want people to be free. They don't want people to think for themselves. If they did they'd realise how much bullshit they were being fed everyday in the media, how pointless their jobs and targets are, and how false and conceited their politicians are. Consequently, benefits are set low and kept low along with increasing and punitive threats against those who don't play the game. Yet this contract, the deal people are supposed to have with society is never a two way deal. It's do what the state says and not how can we help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)