Skip to main content

It's That Time of the Year

Shops are advertising Christmas vacancies still. The jobcentre of course obliges. This post is to discuss whether it's worth it. Waterstones have a couple of 4 week jobs advertised, but I don't think I'm going to bother. No doubt that's the wrong attitude, but I don't care. I'm done in with all this nonsense. The Jobcentre just doesn't understand these things.
Working for a month will involve signing off for that period and, inevitably, signing back on right afterwards. You'll have a few quid spending money in your pocket for Christmas; that isn't an issue for me. You can't claim if you're working full time, but you will still need to find the money to meet your expenses (including bus fares which are exorbitant). The problem with this is something the JC has never been able to properly address. I've started work after signing off before where I've been promised financial support to help tide me over until you get paid only to be told that then wasn't going to be forthcoming and that I will just have to manage because, and I quote, 'other people manage'. Even a month's work like this you won't be paid weekly. So you will need to support yourself to even do the job, as well as meet your daily needs (food, etc) for that period. Of course when you get paid, the job ends.
Then you have the fun and games of restarting your claim. Rapid reclaims (according to my JC, at least, I can't confirm this) have been relegated to history and so that means another period of insecurity. So you won't be treating yourself to anything nice over the festive season because you'll need your money to tide you over until you can claim again.
Now people might argue that it's good experience. Well if that's what you want then fine. I don't think a month's work means fuck all personally, especially when there are so many people out of work with all kinds of superior levels of experience anyway. This is where we get into the competitive aspect of looking for work. People shouldn't have to be competing against their fellow citizens to find paid work to live, it's a crazy way of living. But we ameliorate that by putting down the people that lose out. I also don't want a career in retail (which is not the same thing as saying I won't ever work in a shop) so that experience means nothing to me. I don't buy into this argument that 'it all looks good on the cv'. I think it's more important to make choices that are right for you than it is to appease these transient social conventions, and if it means hobbling yourself when dealing with the byzantine benefits system later on then it just isn't worth it.
Some might argue that it can lead to a full time job. Well, it could, but that's highly unlikely. If they wanted permanent full time staff - they'd advertise for them. This really is just an urban myth used to scare the scroungers, the same with most things (like the above 'experience' notion).
No, all of this ignores the real issues: the inflexible system that, if you fall foul of, can land you in real hardship, and the lack of real opportunities and support that isn't based on 4 weeks work. Maybe then it's best we all reject these jobs, as full time jobseekers, and leave such positions to those they are intended for (students, for example). Putting these jobs in the same category as career opportunities or long term good paid work is disingenuous and counter productive.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I Fucking Hate the Work Programme

That did not go well.
My legs were wobbly to begin with as I closed in on the church that passes for the office of the employment wing of the Salvation Army. My appointment was 3 to half past. I really did feel sick. Pretty early on, when he asked for the forms he gave me last time to fill in, I knew that what was arranged on the letter (a short interview with me bringing my CV and jobsearch) was actually going to be much longer. I also knew that, come half three when I had to leave to catch my bus back ten minutes later, I was going to have problems. 
Unfortunately, though more for me I fear, it never got that far; at 20 past he terminated the interview citing my apparent 'putting up barriers' as the reason not to continue. This was because I refused consent for him to keep my CV. I asked why he needed it and offered, three times, to show it to him (that's all), he said it was to apply for jobs on my behalf. The EEC's need this information.
What's an EEC? Employm…

Anybody Out There?

Just so I can be sure this is being read at all and decide whether it's worth continuing, please shout out in the comments. Even if you think I'm talking barmy bollocks, it'd be helpful to know if there are people reading this and not weird bots from phishing sites or Russian hackers or some weird sentient algorithm.

Apologies if you are none of those things, but I'm considering what to do with this blog.

Thanks

ADD

Thursday today (unless time has confused me again!), the day between yesterday's appointment with The Psychologist, and signing on tomorrow. A brief oasis for me to discuss said appointment as it was a test for 'neurodiverse tendencies'. I think that's the best way of putting it; it's all a bit vague really. When I first saw The Psychologist I mentioned that I was in the process of trying to get a diagnosis for Aspergers to which she replied she could do a test that, while not an official diagnosis, could count towards one - or something. Something official anyway, though bizarrely after the test was completed (took a couple of hours) she said she wasn't trained for Aspergers specifically.

The test itself was a kind of Krypton Factor lite (sans exercise course): a mix of recall, pattern recognition, problem solving, and questionnaire. I was asked to arrange coloured blocks into a prescribed pattern, to spot what was missing from a series of pictures, to guess fr…