The Eve of the War

Nearly new year. The only celebration of the season worth a damn in my view. I'm not a religious person, but there are definite benefits to marking the end of one year and the beginning of another. I won't be doing that in any kind of social way. I can't afford to travel to somewhere and drink something. Besides the people I know will be with their families and kids. I have neither (not sure if that's a blessing or a curse) and I don't really drink (never really formed a relationship with alcohol; I rarely imbibe except the occasional cold bottled beer).

So where do we stand right now? I could mention IDS (hashtag Tory shitbag) and his rant in the Telegraph today, but instead I'll let Channel 4's factchecker debunk his hysteria instead. 

This has been my first year on the Work Programme - technically 9 months as I started in April, 13 months after signing on, which was itself 2 months after my ESA appeal ended. I never expected to win so I barely contested it. Maybe things would have been different otherwise, though given that ESA is time limited if you're in the WRAG (as I may soon be) I would have ended up on JSA anyway. Besides, regardless, I'd be on the Work Programme either way. ESA = Employment Support Allowance, expect it is nothing of the kind. It's a benefit for the sick denied to the sick. The government claims it wants to help people back into work, but then manages to sabotage it's own efforts while then branding claimants, who naturally fail the ATOS test, as scroungers. We can't win. It's spectacularly Orwellian. 

Perhaps 2013 will be the year this changes. 

I certainly think there will be changes next year, and not for the better. This will be the watershed for those of us resisting this government. Unfortunately as it stands the unions seem to again have abandoned the cause. I'm sensing a groundswell of real palpable anger now; a sense of total frustration. This will spill over, in my opinion. Perhaps when Universal Credit kicks in (or fails to), or maybe sooner, when the cuts really start to bite, or maybe when some new piece of Tory hate is announced. I won't be surprised if we see more rioting, perhaps even more serious rioting. There has to be an organised civil response to this vile government, but it has got to be effective. 

So what have we learned from the Work Programme? What have my two appointments taught me, in preparation for number three, on the 14th of January? It's clear the whole scheme is misrepresented; the government claims it gives competent caring organisations, with experience, a free hand to help people in whatever way is needed. I have even seen the provider's own adviser job description agree to this. However the truth is that free hand manifests as a rigid doctrine that demands conformity for their benefit: make us money and it's a success. Resist, for whatever reason, and you can expect a 'compliance doubt' to land a sanction in  your lap. 

There is no discussion with these people: they are not interested in listening to your story, they are not interested in your problems or issues despite that being their apparent job description. In fact if you have problems - maybe health related if you come from ESA - you will be treated as idling and making excuses. Do not expect help or support. Expect instead to do what they want, where and when they want. The Programme is not set up for the convenience of the claimant, it is set up for the provider. You will attend in their house at a time of their choosing; that they pay your expenses is not a boon, it's further expense to the taxpayer. The scheme does nothing for rural communities.

Expect your interests, skills and talents, to be traduced; these count for nothing. This is because of the soporific way advisers operate. Want to be a writer (or even to investigate any opportunity that may come from having some interest or even skill therein), forget it. That requires 'experience' and 'training' two things the Work Programme is systemically incapable of providing, except at a ridiculously basic level: 'CV training' or 'employability training'. That magic word: employability. It's a perfect example of the adviser mentality, inventing something out of thin air and then using it as a hoop to make claimants jump through. What does it mean? Is it simply code for 'be polite, don't drop your trousers in front of your boss, don't spit in the office, don't punch customers on the nose'? Common sense surely? 

Ok there are people that lack even basic skills some of us take for granted. That's fair enough, but lumping them in with everyone else will breed resentment from both ends.

So what do providers want? Well in my case, personal data and authority over that information it seems. Do they have a right to that? I hope not! With the introduction late in the year of the awful Universal Jobmatch system it seems more and more of our rights are being curtailed. We have less and less authority over our own decision making processes. Why am I not entitled to even see the people, let alone vet them, that the provider would pass my details to? Isn't that absurd? 

This must be resisted at every level. It cannot be lawful that I have to concede control over personal data in order to maintain a claim on the only source of income I have. In the meantime the issues that the provider accuses me of using as a 'barrier' to work (or at least the opportunity to apply for jobs that don't exist or that aren't suitable) are explicitly and furiously ignored. 

That's where we stand right now. The Work Programme is still going; it's still limping along like a wounded animal, bleeding into the environment. It is, on every level, incompetent unhelpful and dictatorial. The staff are untrained and uncaring and the environment inappropriate and hopeless. That will be our future as well unless we fight for it. 

Goodnight Britain, and happy new year.

Season of Stupid part 2

I'm bored. Really bored. I wish the end of the year phase would hurry up and pass. Come to think of it, I wish Winter would hurry up and pass. Even though it's nice that it's not fucktastically freezing cold, everywhere is muddy and saturated and it's horrible. Also I'd know if my claim has been decided as well. I could do with learning to hibernate; store some nuts under a tree or something and live off that for 3 months.

According to the human side of the Post Office my special delivery was delivered, however their useless track and trace website doesn't seem to agree. I guess I have to accept I'm being told the truth because it would be too depressing and utterly outrageous for these people to lie to me. 

My god, but I've got £140 burning a hole in my pocket! I could spend that money sooooo quickly right now - and part of me thinks 'why fucking not, keep a little bit back, they wont' refuse your claim!'. But another part of me, perhaps more wisely, says 'don't be an idiot'! It would help if there were more things to do round here, but rural communities are really bearing the brunt of the Tory blight. There's just no support structures at all. In fact, aside from care work (which I really can't face doing) there's fuck all voluntary work other than sitting in a charity shop. I've done that before, don't want to do it again! 

There's never been much support round here. I think most people don't see there's a need as it's populated by affluent retirees and Tory voting landowners. That just makes it worse. It would be something if I could travel without having to pay £7 a time. The local rag advertised on it's front page this week the government's new initiative for free travel for the unemployed, for one month only. What a bizarre notion; probably by the time they've processed your application for the pass it'll be the middle of January at least. That's probably what they are counting on.

And the woman I spoke to on the phone at the Post Office assured me she'd email me confirmation. Hasn't done so. I guess she misheard my email address (it's not a complicated or bizarre one since the JC made me change it because it originally scared Tesco). They better have delivered it!

The Season of Stupid

Seasins Greeetings! On the 17th I managed to persuade my GP to write a sick note, due to the bullshit of the Work Programme and his agreeing that it was, indeed, bullshit.

The following day I rang the ESA new claims number only to be told that there is a glitch on their system preventing people that have already claimed in the past from doing so again. He posts out a form. I don't discover the reason for this until Thursday when I try my luck again. I'm 'assured' this error is peculiar to the process of applying via telephone, even though that is the preferred method.

On Wednesday I post off my JSA booklet with a signature to say I'm ending my claim. I send it recorded delivery. While doing my shopping early in town (early enough to avoid the seasonal chaos) I ask in the JC to see if they have a form to save waiting. I have to explain to them why they should give me a form and not be directed, by default, to the phones. They have no forms in stock.

As I said, I tried the ESA new claims number again.

On Saturday the form arrives and I begin to fill it in. 

Unbeknownst to me the post office try delivering my booklet on Christmas Eve. Noone is working so they can't get a signature and the booklet is taken back to the delivery office awaiting the recipient's collection.

I fill in the form and post it off this morning using Special Delivery, taking no chances even though it's freepost. I need this to a) arrive and b) arrive quickly! I've got £140 left, that has to see me through until a decision is made. Hopefully this won't take longer than a fortnight, though that money is certainly burning a hole in my pocket! I'd dearly love to dip in and treat myself, but I don't dare!

I check the royal mail website to see if my booklet has arrived and find out they tried to deliver it. I ring them up (a feat in itself) to find out what will happen now. To my horror I discover that, at this point, I no longer have any claim to the letter; it is now the responsibility of the recipient to collect it. I ask them why they didn't try delivering it today (and every day until it is successfully delivered). You might think that is a reasonable course of action - or to return to sender if that's not possible. Apparently that's not how they roll. 

Nope, they try and deliver it once, regardless of when or where, regardless of whether it might be to a place at a time that's reasonable to assume would be inauspicious (such as Christmas). If they can't get a signature, back to the office it goes and back there it stays. They make one single effort to deliver something that, by virtue of being sent recorded, might reasonably be assumed to be important. If that doesn't work, well, tough shit! Sucks to be me!

Now you might wonder why that's a big deal. My concern is twofold: firstly, I'm now stressing out like a motherfucker as to whether my esa package (including sick note) will be successfully delivered tomorrow, and secondly, what arrangements the DWP offices and their mail departments have to deal with these situations. That is, if they don't deal with collecting mail then I. Am. Fucked. 

Naturally the Post Office don't care; they'll say they've done their bit and then sit back and pat themselves on the back having charged me almost seven quid (I can't afford to fritter away) to have vitally important documents end up in their fucking dungeon! If that happens tomorrow...

Carded?

On Friday morning, hapless BBC radio phone in host John Darvall presided over a discussion about the proposed welfare cash card; an idea put forward by some hapless no mark Tory trying trying to ingratiate himself with his betters. The idea of course is total bunkum and cannot possibly work; sadly that's the hallmark of good Tory policy these days. 

Naturally the discussion was filled with curtain twithers and ignorance. The comments were filled with the twitching received nonsense about welfare paying people not to work etc. These views are proffered in an almost plagiarised fashion.

At least four times, during the hour long debate, Mr Darvall (who comes across as some kind of low rent Alan Partridge, sans Lexus) explicitly referred to porn as one of the things that a card user wouldn't be able to spend their money on. Porn? Seriously? Why is this mentioned? Who has told him to refer to porn in the same breath as other things like alcohol or fags? How many benefit claimants spend their welfare on pornography? 

The first caller gets things going in typical fashion commenting that 'we' (ie the poor old taxpayer) are subsidising 'their' (ie the scrounging morass of shirkers) alcohol and drug habits. No facts are presented regarding just how many benefit claimants, which would necessarily include pensioners, are users. So instead the listener is tacitly invited to assume that most if not all are users. If that were ever to be true then I'm sure the relevant industries would have objections to a cash card. Just like the pay day loan sharks would.

Sky TV is also mentioned - again. It is also not pointed out that people, those on welfare that do have a Sky account (never mind a dish, which one may have without an active account, like me) may have set theirs up prior to losing their job. Furthermore once such a person is sacked they aren't going to find Mr Murdoch willing to let them out of their contract and come and prepossess the dish and box. That's the nature of big business; happy to take your money in the good times, notsomuch in the bad. So instead we blame the claimant, on superficial evidence much like the closed curtains debacle.

All these ridiculous icons of a perceived 'good' life that, to quote the callers, 'working people have to pay for'. Well you don't have to pay for them anymore than the unemployed do; noone's forcing you to sign up to Murdoch's death machine anymore than they are making you drink and smoke. But people are programmed to believe these are the measures of success in life: owning a sky box, a plasma TV, an xbox, and being able to drink stagnant liver rotting water. So much so that seeing others have access to these things, without any explanation of how, is enough to drive people against each other.

Naturally these issues are not discussed. Instead people are invited to bray and babble, putting out statements of such airheaded ignorance it would embarrass a valley girl. The really sad part is nothing is challenged. These discussions, and this is not the first (as I've commented before) nor will it be the last, are so feeble that all they do is promote the status quo and become an echo chamber for media fed ignorance happily exploited by benefit claiming millionaires such as Gideon Osborne. But it's ok; the callers know these things 'for a fact'. One chump even says that, when he used to claim, he played the system! Er?

So the callers are in favour of a cashcard that, according to the idiot presenter (he really is), precludes people purchasing all sorts of things that are all on sale in the supermarkets serving as the only places cashcard users can shop. How would that work then? We'll gloss over that of course. The truth is that the supermarkets would have to retrain their staff and reprogramme their checkouts, especially the self service ones. How else would they be able to distinguish between a bottle of scotch and a bottle of milk, how would they stop me buying a dvd, or a newspaper, or some batteries, or a pack of exercise books, some biros, a cuddly toy? What happens if the card isn't accepted because of a malfunction? What happens to unspent money on the card? What happens if someone does have some spare cash because they were able to shop around - this is the kind of socialism the government likes, despite their apparent love for the free market. Socialism for the rich, with their inherited wealth, tax breaks, land subsidies etc, and free market capitalism, with all its fraught perils, for the poor.

Do we assume that money spent on social activities/entertainment is a luxury? Do these people want to ban library access to the unemployed as well? It's a recipe for social destruction. That doesn't stop some old bird comparing wartime rationing with a welfare cash card scheme: if it was ok during the blitz then it's ok now! Apparently no one complained back then (yeah right). Clean your rosy spectacles my dear!

Sadly the elephant in the room is trumpeting it's head off but none taking part can hear it: wages are terrible. People perceive benefits as more generous because they themselves work long hours for very little. Why aren't these people organising to do something about that? Why not take up solidarity with existing unions - including with people out of work since it affects all of us, working or otherwise? Can't be bothered; far easier to presume laziness on the part of others and ignore it in ourselves.

Darvall casually misrepresents Jobseekers Allowance by £50 (over 50%); "£120 a week or whatever it is". Lazy journalism, but about what I've come to expect from local radio. And he keeps referring to pornography!

One caller, naturally supportive of this nonsense, rationalises her thinking by way of saying her (ex) friend spends her welfare down the pub. Well of course. A typical, unexplained, baseless anecdote. If this story is true, and of course the details are not provided, then the friend in question is clearly an addict. The first thing such a person would do with a cash card is sell it. They are still forced to participate in a capitalist free market economy, only with thoughtless restrictions that do nothing to address the causes of her problem. All stick no carrot. 

Final comment comes from someone who, despite never having claimed, believes the system he has no experience of is too generous.

Ignorance.

...Into the Fire?

So now I have to make a claim for ESA! At the worst possible time of year to do so!

I rang on Tuesday: it's either that or pay the library a small fortune to print out the entire form (57 pages at 20p a pop). I don't own a printer. 

The gentleman starts to take my claim. You have to allow them to go through the process at their own pace because they have a very strict script that includes all sorts of legal stuff that you cannot interrupt. Ok, that's fair enough, some people will have complex answers and they need to understand what they are saying. Never mind the fact that ESA is explained as a benefit for those too sick to work which in practise it isn't (otherwise why would there be a Work Related Activity Group, which I'm trying to get into so the Government's own support systems can actually do their job).

Unfortunately there is a glitch. One that, when I tried ringing back today, is persistent: if you have made a prior ESA claim then it can fuck up the system. Details of that claim are retained which, somehow, get in the way of a subsequent claim. To be fair to the woman on the phone today she was apologetic about it (not her fault): they know it's bullshit but it isn't getting fixed anytime soon. It's a persistent known issue. 

This means they have to send out a claim form to fill in. This was done on Tuesday, but god knows when it will arrive. I wasn't sure it was actually posted since the guy I spoke to then put me on hold for 20 minutes to sort it out (he must have actually gone to the post department and put it in the envelope personally) and then I got cut off!

While in town doing my shopping yesterday morning (ie when it's less busy - though still busy enough that if I stop moving my brain feels like I'm drowning in a sea of people, supermarket shelves, indoor lighting and jingle bells - there's something about indoor lighting that really gets to me), I wen to the JC. Maybe I could pick up a form directly. Of course not! Never mind that the desk clerk couldn't just go and look, they were 'out of stock'. He tried to fob me off by getting me to use the phone, which clearly I can't. I explained this and he went and looked. I don't really understand how the JC manages to not have any ESA forms, but they didn't. I guess I will just have to wait and hope it doesn't get lost in transit like the letter I posted to the Salvation Army on the 1st which is now technically MIA. I tried the CAB but they don't have forms either.

You'd think that transferring a claim from J to ESA would be actually relatively simple; especially in the case of someone that doesn't have a lot of personal information to track whose personal details are the same in each case (where applicable). Surely I could just post in the sicknote and everything's fine. But nothing is ever easy with this system - and that's before we get Universal Credit next year!

Out of the Frying Pan?

Well I did it. I managed to convince my GP to sign me off. I explained just how the Work Programme were not interested in helping me, despite the vaunted covenant of the scheme, unless I was on the 'right' benefit. In the end he wrote a 3 month note. Now all I have to do is find some way to apply for ESA during the busiest time of year for the postal service (you can't apply online, so much for the IT systems).

To be fair, I have been quite critical of my GP, but today I think he finally started realising just how out of whack, out of touch and fucking ridiculous the welfare system is. In fact he was sounding quite emphatic about it and wanted to write to the local MP (a tory, sadly) to tell him just how ridiculous, as a GP, it is to have to operate this way. I'm not sure about that and wanted to wait until the claim is processed at least - one thing at a time.

I think part of it is having other patients with similar tales of woe. Certainly that's what he hinted at; I've no idea who else locally is having to deal with this insane system. Let's hope they don't have to deal with the likes of these privateers on the Work Programme!

Hopefully the claim will be processed in time for my appointment on the 14th of January with the Work Programme. I'm told there's a 2-3 weeks turnaround time, I should just about be ok financially, but of course there's no guarantee. So while I'm glad that I can sign off (and my JSA payment should go out tomorrow as it needs to clear in time for the Christmas holidays), I can't help wondering if it's a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. I'd like to believe that the Work Programme might be more helpful on ESA, but that kind of schizoid about face doesn't exactly put these people in a good light.

Sadly, in other news the Tories have launched a new offencive in their great crusade against scroungers. This is a link to a questionnaire on a Tory website asking if people think more money should go to either: 'hard working families' or 'people who won't work'. Not people that can't, or don't (because of conditions out of their control, such as recession), but people who 'won't; lazy scroungers in other words. Like me! It's all under the guise of 'fairness'. This is just the Tories starting to realise the wind is shifting; they are now trying to play divide and rule even more to shore up support for the changes incoming next year: is it fair that you, having just been made redundant from your job in the public sector (boo hiss!) should take a hit when these other people won't work? Bollocks! 

Ironically one of the good things about unemployment is how it teaches you to see through all the urban myths and the bullshit propagated by the status quo. It broadens the mind. It's an education in its own right!

Madness!

On the 1st I wrote a letter of complaint to the Salvation Army regarding my adviser who has behaved, in my opinion, quite poorly. I feel him to be an ignorant bully. That letter has yet to arrive so this morning I had no option but to ring up and discuss this personally. Yet another insight into a world gone mad.

I get through to the line manager concerned. I try to explain how the adviser has ignored my medical information which, initially, she confirms they have, as passed on by the DWP. I say initially because when I later said that back to her she decided to hedge her bets. 

Instead of initially discussing the guy's behaviour she points out that I'm on JSA, that's what her system (correctly) tells her. This means that there's nothing they can do because people on JSA have to be treated a certain way. They have to do jobsearch, apply for jobs and basically do everything the Jobseeker Agreement sets out. I know this. I explain that's what I've been doing and that I show the JC this each time I sign on. But the Work Programme needs you to do this as well. So not only do you have to do what the JC want you to do, you have to do what the WP wants. 

She mentioned Universal Jobmatch and agreed when I quickly pointed out it wasn't mandatory, but it seems that only counts as far as the JC is concerned. So because you have to jobsearch while on the Work Programme I'd have to register with UJ - the mandatory requirement is only from the JC side of things. The WP can compel you to do so as well, it seems. It sounds almost as if they are expecting JSA claimants to do everything twice: once to satisfy the JC requirement to sign on, and then a second time according to how the provider wants it done. I hope that's not true.

But I'm trying to explain the adviser's behaviour, and predictably she's not really interested in taking what I say on board without making excuses: "i'm sure that's not what he meant", etc. She decides that I must be on the wrong benefit. Now that's not entirely untrue, but I explain that my GP doesn't want to write a sick note and wants you, the WP, to help me find the right kind of work and give me the right kind of support, regardless of whether or not I claim ESA. Here's the problem: that, according to her, isn't possible. It is either JSA or ESA. This means that anyone found capable of work by the WCA will end up on the Woprk Programme on JSA, so regardless if you're on dialysis with no liver, or in a wheelchair, you will be put thorugh the programme as if you were absolutely physically fine.

The really sick part of this is that they have further and different options for people that are on ESA. These will not be available unless you are claiming ESA, regardless of how ill you actually are! This is insanity! She asked me what I was interested in so I told her I was interested in writing - something the adviser was quick to do no more than rubbish. She quickly responded saying she knew of 3 writing courses. I asked her why the adviser couldn't offer me these options (whether these courses amount to anything is another matter however) and support me thus - because I'm on JSA! This bespoke (their words, by the way) service is nothing of the sort; there is no flexibility at all. It's hobson's choice and all dependent on what benefit you receive.

She pointed out they are not medically trained and I pointed out that, even if I were to claim ESA (nevermind that getting a sick note will be a herculean task of persuasion, but passing the WCA will be the impossible), I'd still be with them. She said they can refer me to different agencies that specialise in support. 

On the plus side my appointment for next week has been changed to a meeting with her in the middle of January. I was adamant I would not see the adviser again - for all the good that will do. In the meantime I have another appointment with my GP next week and I will have to move heaven and earth to persuade him that the only option for support requires him sign me off. This is patently ridiculous. I don't really fancy my chances, but according to the Work Programme itself, I have to claim ESA - a benefit that the government doesn't want anyone to have. 

This whole ridiculous scheme seems to take with the one hand what it gives with the other. No wonder it's failed so badly.

Odd Man Out

Today was signing day. As usual I'm anxious. I'm always anxious. But no more so than dole day. There are three people before me, and vulture faced Sue is on deck. I'm anticipating the worst: that she'll be my adviser. I don't like Sue; the rest are more or less ok, as advisers go, but Sue has an attitude. She's cynical, suspicious and really quite derisory. She talks down to people, and loudly. You could apply for 1000 jobs - and have the evidence - and she'll criticise you for not applying for 1001.

Each of the three people before me are asked whether they've signed with the Universal Jobmatch. Oh dear, I think, I see what's coming. Similarly they are also asked the token 'how's it going with the WP' (a pointless question since if things aren't going well they won't be interested). In each case these people, and by extension the majority of claimants signing on there, I assume, have no problem. In the case of Universal Jobfarce, they seem quite amiable about it all; quite ok with conceding their personal data. 

It's my turn and I'm asked if I've registered. I decide not to divulge more than is necessary: I simply say that I haven't. I'm then told, as I was last time, that the site is great and wonderful: you can store your CV, you can get alerts notifying you about vacancies (?), etc, etc. It's just sales talk from people who really don't seem clued up on the reality of all this, especially the security issues. They don't seem at all bothered that once you put this sort of stuff online there's no going back. Once your data is out there...it'll stay out there. God knows where it could end up. 

There's no compulsion, at this point, so I don't choose to declare my intention not to sign. I have no stomach for an argument. This is the same person (not Sue, thank fuck) that believed I had to engage with the WP and that, if I didn't contact them, I might face a sanction. This sort of ambivalent information malaise, this lack of clarity on the part of the adviser, is troubling in my opinion. They hold the power at the point of signing, but they seem really rather cavalier in regard to the facts. However if I am compelled to register, even implicitly, I will certainly point out that it is, at the time of writing, not mandatory. 

So that would make me the odd man out. By standing up in a field of otherwise compliant peers, I get to stick my head over the parapet. This is really bothering me. We all know what that means: you get marked as the troublemaker. Here's the guy that won't play ball, he wont' help himself - he can't be bothered. That's what the prevailing attitude will be; not whether or not his objections and views have any validity. Not whether or not there should be solidarity in this.

I'm not asked, thankfully, how it's going on the WP, but she does ask me if I have an appointment, going back to her concern about engagement. Here again is another example of adviser disinterest: I told the adviser I saw last time that my appointment is on the 17th (provisionally - my complaint will change that, I'm sure, if it ever gets delivered) and she input it into the system. These people just don't listen: she looks at my jobsearch and notices where I had siad that I'd, weekly, looked on the websites of various shops, including Argos (they have recruitment sites, why not look at them?). She then decides that Argos are currently looking for staff. This raises two problems: firstly, why is she ignoring what's written on the jobsearch, and secondly why ignore the fact that my mental health makes working in busy retail environments, such as Christmas in Argos, extremely difficult. I don't argue the point, but again it's adviser disinterest. Why ask me to fill in a jobsearch if you're going to tell me that I'm wrong in this fashion when I point out that I didn't see anything when I looked at their recruitment page. She probably thinks that such pages are not worth visiting, but that's bollocks.

It's just a process now. I'm not getting any help from these people. She books my next appointment, makes some noise about being due a tea break (I offer a suitably feeble sympathetic smile), and that's it. No real input from me - I'm never asked, for example, what might be an appropriate time to come in. It's meant to be the same time each fortnight, but they are poorly organised and apparently their systems don't work that way, despite the local bus service overhauling it's timetable making certain times invalid where previously where were ok. I'm not listened to, there's no interest, and no help. Business as usual; just another day at the office.

Delivering Hope?

Perhaps it's sheer bitterness that causes me to post this. Today's post includes the Christmas appeal for charity from none other than the Salvation Army. It's not sent to me personally, just the household, that would be too much otherwise. The campaign is entitled 'Delivering hope for the UK's most vulnerable'. 

I find this extraordinary: is this the state of our society? On one hand they can talk about how much it will cost, with your/my help, to give kids a few treats for Christmas, or to house a homeless person temporarily in one of their shelters, or to give a bit of companionship to an old person. Yet on the other hand their Employment Plus department, which, according to them, is fully a part of the Salvation Army, is quite able and willing to issue 'compliance doubts' leading to the kind of poverty they claim to campaign against!?! Is this reality?

"At tghe Salvation Army, we believe that no one deserves to be cold, alone or neglected, especially at Christmas. So, we are committed to reaching out to people who need us..."

I feel sick. There probably are some genuinely compassionate people that work for the Salvation Army who want nothing more than to help. But this is an organisation that runs the government's Work Programme which is failing the unemployed and makes use of poverty as a weapon of compliance. How can they square these two aspects?

The letter accompanying the campaign info/donation form is signed by a person (no need to mention names) who has the 'rank' of Lieutenant-Colonel! Again the militarisation!

On the 1st I wrote a letter of complaint stating that I will not see my adviser again. I made it clear they are to communicate only to me and that, if I hear nothing from them, I will assume my next appointment, with said adviser, is cancelled (fat chance). Unfortunately despite being sent recorded delivery there seems to be no evidence of it's arrival, if it has arrived. It really wouldn't help me if the letter doesn't arrive, but that's out of my hands. I'm not really looking forward to the ensuing 'discussion' this will provoke, but I am damned sure that they will be 'delivering' me from that adviser.

Data Protection

"Under the Data Protection Act 1998, the information you provide and we hold on record about you is known as personal data (e.g. name, address, etc). There are other information such as racial or ethnic origins, political opinions, religious or other beliefs, trade union membership, health, sex life or sexual orientation, criminal proceedings or convictions that you provide which are classed as ‘sensitive personal data’.

Dixons Retail will process (e.g. record and use) your personal and sensitive personal data for it’s internal records and/or to assist in the selection for employment process, where necessary. We will not share your data with third parties except where we have legal obligations to do so."

This is from the Dixons careers page. If you pursue an application there it is processed online; currently I'm padding out my jobsearch (the UJ site is so crap I fear the worst when I next sign on as my record will be extremely lean) with an application for a job I can't do. Bit silly really - and trying to answer the questions it asks honestly is next to impossible: I don't really want a career with Dixons, yet if I say this you can be sure it will get nowhere, which seems a little too easy to me. No, that doesn't make sense at all.

It seems clear from the above wording that what is contained on a CV and what would be contained in the information one submits to the Universal Jobmatch/DWP Gateway account widget is regarded as personal data, under the terms of the act. As the above warning makes clear such information cannot be shared unless there are legal obligations. Does the Work Programme, do its providers, have that obligation?

The Dixons site processes your permission when you click to continue from this point, so it seems quite clear to me that the same rules must apply to the DWP and the Work Programme. Though we cannot put anything past these people under IDS, Grayling and now Hoban.

If you looked at him, could he work?

That is the question of the day; posed by the BBC Bristol 9am anchor, John Darball. He hosts a phone in this morning discussing the welfare state. I tuned in as I suspected this would be up for discussion in light of the day’s announcement of the results of the Work Programme.

 

This question was asked of a caller who had rung in talking about her apparently feckless daughter and son in law. The latter, it was alleged, had been on the sick for a number of years while also fathering 4 kids. When asked what was wrong with him this woman, the mother of the wife, couldn’t answer. She didn’t know. BBC researchers didn’t bother to vet this caller on those grounds, never mind that she obviously didn’t think, while demonising the father of her grandchildren on local radio, it pertinent to find out. Then the host asked the above question: if you looked at him, could he work? 

Is this the quality of journalism we can expect on this matter? A question so ludicrous it defies belief; what would even qualify this woman to back up her predictably affirmative response. That was not even discussed. No one challenged the lunatic assertion that one can diagnose the condition of another – someone obviously deemed unfit to work by someone qualified in medical diagnosis. This is where we are at: we can’t even trust doctors to sign people off. We don’t even know if this man is on ESA and has been through the WCA – and if he’s passed that then he really must be ill as people with terminal cancer aren’t considered ill enough by this test.

The question belies a disgraceful ignorance of invisible conditions, particularly mental and emotional illness. Does dragging the father of your grandchildren and the husband of your daughter (who may well be a good loving husband and father for all we know, though of course the discussion implies quite the opposite) help such issues?

The tenor of the discussion was superficial and risible. Clearly intended as a parade of anecdotes containing no real insight; most were critical of the system from all sides but provided no evidence or fact or anything to move things forward. No mention made of statistical evidence. No mention of the cost of pensions as part of the welfare budget, just continued assertions that people are on the fiddle, people are encouraged by the system to live a lifestyle (without even defining what that might be), people are not encouraged to be ‘entrepreneurs’. The comments read like they were from a script – which of course isn’t far from the truth at all. These people are merely reacting to what they read in the papers and hear on discussions in a perpetual feedback loop designed to make them angrier and more frustrated.

When someone calls in to say they are frustrated because their wife’s ESA is being stopped, the discussion makes no mention that this is a policy of the current government (the time limiting of ESA to a year only, if one is in the WRAG). So of course that caller garners sympathy for what is clearly a difficult and ridiculous position. But then the divide and rule kicks in: we can feel sympathy for him, because clearly they are a deserving family. It’s the rest of them that are scroungers – worse, there is a sense these others, the undeserving poor, are making it harder for the others to get what they need. That’s the real message being presented. It’s their fault, the scroungers, not the coalition and its hateful policies; no discussion of their failings and their politics.

Another person talks about how he has gotten nowhere as a victim of epilepsy applying without success for jobs. Despite being keen to work, his enthusiasm is tested: would you do anything? Would you work for the minimum wage? 

It’s like something out of a reality TV show: how low will you abase yourself for stardom. How low is your self worth that you will sacrifice it for conformity? Are you prepared to take as little as an employer can legally offer for the shittiest job there might be – as if, in such times as these, the only work available will of course be the shittiest. Why should that be? It’s as if, in times of austerity, life becomes like a theatre and all the best seats get taken by the entrepreneurs, the rich and the ‘hard working’. Unfortunately this person makes the mistake of asking for more than the NMW and being just a little bit too hesitant (though not really) in wanting a decent enough job. Scrounger.

How dare he aspire to a fulfilling life with a wage he can live on! Can’t these multi million pound profit making corporations pay their staff better? Why shouldn’t those that do the work be entitled to a better share of the profits of their labour? No, instead low wages, as typified by Lord Freud’s attitude to welfare, are there to encourage aspiration and risk taking (though not the real risk of facing destitution and poverty). Yes, these big fat cats are not paying you a pittance for their benefit, but for yours. Though I’m sure if we looked at him, we could see he could work.

Universal Jobmatch

Started on Monday. Got a leaflet today when I signed on (which went smoothly, fortunately). Thankfully there was no mention of compulsion to register, though I'm sure my new best friends at the Work Programme will regard registration as part of their 'compliance'.

It's shit. The old jobcentre search site was bad: jobs were organised appallingly containing text that was cut and paste from other sites with no proper explanation. The search parameters didn't work and it was a huge chore to search for anything. This site is still badly ignored, but to get the most out of it you 'need' to register. You don't have to, according to the DWP. In fact not every advert contains contact information that is gated behind registration. 

Why are we being coerced to sign? The owner is yet another private outfit, in this case Monster, so of course it's all about the continuing slow motion privatisation of the jobcentre. Sadly instead of objecting to this I get an adviser keen to hand over a leaflet telling me all about it! 

Aside from their dreadful security, Monster has highly worrying privacy issues on this site. It even says that, if you are concerned, you shouldn't register. Good advice.

When I look at the site and type in my postcode to search the local vacancies within a 20 mile radius (which is as reasonable as it gets), it still comes up with vacancies at the other end of the country. The vast majority of adverts are from agencies. As well as being able to upload a CV you can even click a drop down box to tell them (ie your adviser) why you haven't applied for a job - in other words sanction suicide. 

Interestingly, if your DWP/WP adviser wants you to give them access to your UJ account you could quote this:

"2.3.12 share your login credentials to the site with anyone else;"

or

"

2.3.18 send unwanted mail or email, make unwanted phone calls or send unwanted faxes promoting and/or advertising products or services to any person that uses the service, or contact any person that uses the service who has asked not to be contacted by you;

"

which is from the terms and conditions of the site.

Recruiters (which may or may not include the DWP and the WP) are also subject to:

"10.4 You agree that CVs sent to you:

10.4.1 will be used and handled in accordance with privacy and data protection laws;

10.4.2 will not be used for any purpose other than as a way for you to identify potential employees or workers.

10.5 You agree not to contact jobseekers unless it is about a job and they have indicated that they are willing to be contacted. You agree to only contact them in the manner that they have specified they wish to be contacted."

 

So no fucking spam! Best of all: just don't register your personal details!

CV?

When I contacted the Employment Plus a couple of weeks ago, having received notification of my appointment, I rang to ask why they needed to see a CV. Of course I have no problem showing mine, which I duly offered only to have it thrown back in my face with threats, I just object to them keeping it and sending it to all and sundry. I was told, quite clearly by the lady in the office that I didn't have to give it up. I told the adviser this on Monday, who of course didnt' believe me.

This seems to be a giant black hole; all the guidance and rules say on this matter is that it's entirely up to the Provider whether they can compel this information. I don't really know the Data Protection Act well enough to use it to support me, but at the very least - again - withholding consent would certainly be interpreted as refusing help that's offered. This seems to be the DWP's ace in the hole; after all why, they would say, would you refuse to give a CV to people who are applying for work on your behalf - you want a job don't you? Thus ignoring the bigger issue.

I contacted Rehab Jobfit this morning to ask what the rules were. They are the prime Provider so they would know, you might think. Unfortunately all they did was pass my number to...the Salvation Army. Had I known that's what they were going to do (obvious, in hindsight) I wouldn't have bothered. They themselves don't know. 

So again I get to speak to the same lady who, with a bit of prompting, remembered me ringing her before and affirmed that I didn't have to give up my CV...well now she's a little bit less sure. Apparently that's what she understands, but only the 'Operations Manager' would know, and he's in a meeting, in Birmingham. I gave up. No point pursuing this at the moment, I'm sure he'll decide the complete opposite and I can do with people ringing me back from this wretched organisation. Interestingly the Adviser said he was going to ask the lady in the office after I explained to him that she had said I didn't have to give up my CV.

I've no wish to speak to them right now. I need to sign on tomorrow (floodwater permitting!). Once that's out the way, and any fallout from Monday that I have to deal with there, is processed, then I can focus on complaining to Employment Plus and finding a new adviser (at the very least).

I find it bizarre that they think it's acceptable to compel my CV on the grounds their 'Employment Engagement Coordinators' can distribute it to any employer or agency (or indeed anyone, presumably) they see fit, on my behalf. I suspect even a redacted CV might be seen as grounds for 'sanction by non engagement'. But it makes no sense to put people in this kind of position; isn't it ridiculous to find yourself receiving phone calls from employers you've never heard of about jobs you know nothing about - never mind their suitability (and that includes the issue of mental heatlh the adviser continue to deny). The end result will be a confused and irritated employer who will likely feed back thus to the Salvation Army (who will then no doubt use that against me). 

How do they expect people to react in that position? Isn't it absurd to just expect people to blithely accept any possibility of any work whatsoever from whomever, just because they are unemployed? Is that how far we've sunk? People are now so conditioned that even this nonsensical situation - surprise job interviews! - is acceptable. What reaction do they except: obviously one of immediate joy and compliance. Is that rational? What if you don't react like that? I certainly wouldn't. I didn't on Monday morning - and my instincts were correct. It was spam. Suddenly I'd have to consider - on the spot - my health issues as well as suddenly being in a state of mind to capitalise on this opportunity; whatever it might be. It could even be a job that's not enough hours due to transport costs. Would that be taken into account by the Salvation Army?

This is what bothers me. If you are not compliant enough in this fashion, never mind if you can cope with this kind of nice surprise, you'll just get into trouble. You'll be accused of putting up barriers. All the usual guff from an unprofessional bully pig ignorant of genuine mental health issues who will no doubt subscribe to pop psychology cheap thinking that does nothing but paper over the cracks. I think that's dangerous.

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? Employment Engagement Coordinator (obviously!).

What's an Employment Engagement Coordinator? His answer "exactly as it sounds". Clearly someone whose job it is to forward your personal information - your CV - to all and sundry. So I refuse consent. This of course is read as refusal to engage. More specifically it is seen as not complying. The Work Programme has 'a lot of compliance' (grammatically nonsensical, but typical of the buzzword culture I'm dealing with). I explained that his own head office - as well as the rules of the programme (I have signed no data protection waiver, nor was asked to, we didn't even finish the action plan - so refusing to sign that, again by the rules, would have sent him over the edge) - state that I don't have to give consent. In the latter case, at least, I hope so!

I said that iot was his decision to terminate the interview. I wasn't refusing anything other than to give away my consent. This is my personal data, there are privacy issues for starters. Why should that automatically mean that I'm refusing anything. I have a CV, you can look at it dumbass! He wasn't interested and proceeded to tell me it wasn't his decision to terminate the interview!

Unfortunately that's not the worst part: I was threatened with a sanction doubt. Or rather a 'compliance doubt'. This did not go down well and I made it clear (not violently though quite frankly I felt spaced out and wobbly throughout the entire experience, not that these people care, it's like talking in different languages) that I won't be left starving in the gutter. Hopefully he relented as he agreed to book an appointment in a month's time where no doubt the whole thing will go round again.

But let's start at the beginning of the appointment because it never got off to a good start. I've already mentioned, in my previous posts, how these people just don't get the problems that some of us have. They operate in a very 'gross' unrefined way. Personal issues are ignored as they focus solely on 'jobsearch' and, in this case, applying for jobs on your behalf. That's how they view helping you. There's none of the bespoke approach and the flexibility they advertise. There's no interest in helping with personal problems or viewing them as part of the picture - at all. Not only that but everything you say is taken literally and nailed down in black and white. There's no flexibility, nor interpretation of what you say: you have to make your case precisely and literally and simplistically. You have to have job goals, short and long term (why the latter then?), these have to be articulated clearly and they have to fit into the adviser's mindset. If not they decide that you are not engaging or that you are somehow wrong - wrong about your own interests experience and life.

For example I tried to explain I was interested in writing. It's not the only thing I'm interested in, but they don't want to know about multiple interests. He wanted to pin this down for his action plan in a way that I just couldn't understand. What sort of writing? How? What steps on your 'journey' (i shit you not) have I taken toward this. I tried to explain that I pursue my own writing interests and that I don't pin myself down because I don' tknow what opportunities are available - after all isn't that what the WP is meant to help with? Aren't they supposed to provide or find out or know such things? Then I can make a decision based on what's available. Nope. I had to tell him I was only interested in being an author. Yet if you take that kind of narrow vision to the JC they tell you that you need to broaden your search horizons. You can't win! He had to have something to put on the system; that's the most important thing. 

So I come across as flaky and he even tells me that he doesn't think writing is for me (I could show him my google docs/skydrive files, but what's the point; it would be lost on him). I was even asked, in return for 20k a year wage what type of writing, if I could choose, I'd do. A bizarre hypothetical situation where in return for less than the average wage he, hypothetically, would offer me any type of writing. But I don't just want to write books/novels. I like writing games. I like poetry. How can people think like this? It's alien to me, at least. Maybe I'm alone in that. I said that I just couldn't answer his question; my head was spinning. I really couldn't answer it. What a bizarre and pointless question! Didn't impress him though. I have to have a short term goal and a long term goal even though it was made perfectly clear that they were only ever going to focus on the former and the latter was just there as a 'feelgood factor' or something. 

He said I should do a creative writing course (fair enough, but I can actually write. It's not some alien skill or something I've never ever done in my life!) so I asked about training. This in response to the adviser, at the first appointment, saying they don't offer training and then the form saying that they did. All they offer is: 'CV training' and 'application form training' and stuff of that level. The lowest common denominator.

Now I'm not knocking that if that's what you need. But that's all they offer. That's the extent of this stupid system. That and EEC's and 'compliance'. Turns out this supposedly individually tailored flexible system is of course, once again, nothing of the kind. What a crock - and backed up with threats too.

When it came to mentioning, as I felt I had to, my mental health issues, I was told that, as I don't have a support worker, they weren't interested. Same as before. I'm on JSA, he says, therefore they aren't untreated in these things. They can't be considered problems, which means they will be viewed as excuses. That just makes things worse. I'm inferring there somewhat, but it's pretty obvious. Everyone that comes through their doors with such issues has a support worker, I don't ergo no problem. Never mind that people aren't just assigned support workers (and in a time of cuts and austerity) such people at the best of times or because they asked the GP and the GP/specialist just assigned someone from some presumed supply of people. It's just pig ignorant.

So where does that leave me? 

Fuck knows, I have no idea what I'm going to face come Friday, when I next sign on. I mentioned numerous times that the JC said the WP was meant to be flexible and that they referred the info regarding my issues as part of the initial arrangement. Again, as before, the adviser insisted that the JC had the wrong end of the stick. In fact he said he was going to march on over there and have to set them straight, so I'm sure that will reflect favourably on me: "what's this you've been saying about us to the WP?". Compliance doubts were strongly mentioned, they may even get raised. I fucking hope not, but what can I do. What credibility do I have? 

It's abundantly clear this scheme is completely inadequate. They are ignorant of their own rules. I asked to see where the rules said I had to give my CV to them. He of course didn't have that to hand. I wasn't asked to sign a data protection waiver. I refused nothing other than to give up my rights. 

These advisers don't really listen; everything is pre-programmed and has to follow a set pattern or procedure. There is no flexibility nor any understanding of issues and difficulties. They want to apply for work on your behalf because all they care about is getting you employed, no matter the cost, or even if it's suitable. God alone knows what would happen if I got a letter through the door telling me I've been applied for a job I've never heard of that I don't feel I can cope with. For example, a busy shop over the Christmas period. I can't cope with that environment, but again that would be perceived as me putting up barriers, not as a genuine problem that needs to be addressed compassionately professionally and appropriately - no chance of that. I mention the shop example because they view the JSAg as their guide when it comes to short term goals. I say the system is inflexible because what's written on there is all they will consider. I tell them that working in retail isn't a goal of mine. It's there because I have no choice. How is that a goal? I also have admin written down which, like writing, I have never done as a paid job, yet they consider admin and not writing. In fact I was told I should get the JC to change that because the adviser wouldn't consider it otherwise. Why not for heaven's sake, that's the whole fucking point of this daft scheme!

Thanks for reading. I'm off to lie down in a darkened room.

Did I Just Bottle It?

In preparation for my interview at Salvation Army Employment Plus today I spammed a load of DWP adverts with my CV on Friday. Unfortunately one of them just rang me back, completely catching me off guard. I didn't recognise who they were so of course I sounded entirely unenthusiastic and possibly (though hopefully not) unfriendly! Sadly this is the consequence of having massive anxiety problems. I don't get butterflies in my tummy; I get bloody great vultures. Upon further identification I remember who it was and she says 'the manager's looked at your cv and would really like to meet you. The next round of interviews is tomorrow afternoon'. At this point my belly does somersaults and I bottle it. I don't recall it being a job I want anyway, though of course that's no excuse. 

I don't really remember specifically what the job is at all so I check my email sent messages and it turns out it was another job advertised via recruitment agency (at least according to the email address and the reply which was automated from a recruitment agency). The email address is one of those weird 'aplitrak' ones that seems to obscure the actual sender itself. I don't know how it works but it's: Gateway.Yorkshire.a4lga4it2th@cleverrecruit.aptrack (dotsomething or other). I don't know who 'clever recuirt' are, but the email response mentions CV Knowhow as well as something or someone called 'idibu systems'. It's all a bit cyberpunk! 

Unfortunately I can't track down the job advert since the new Universal Jobmatch system has replaced the old system with its codes as of today. I can't seem to type in the code, which I noted down on my jobsearch, and look it up. So that's handy. All my old jobsearch evidence is now going to be completely useless as it can't be verified (if that's the intent of the Salvation Army, or the DWP, at any point)!

So I'm wondering: have i just turned down a job (whatever it actually was!), or dodged a bullet from some recruitment nonsense fishing for business? It sounded as though there was something genuine there, though at the risk of being rather negative, I can't think my CV would impress anyone! So if there is a job the standard of application must be really bad! I must say I feel a bit bad now. I don't really want to be thought of as a feckless shirking scrounger (or should that be scrounging shirker). I like to think that I'd make the effort as a member of a decent society, but until I can get the right support (and maybe the right society!) I don't really know how I'd cope.  The Clever Recruit webpage seems peculiar for a recruitment agency; it's more like they are selling a service than advertising jobs - and I can't find any link to any jobs they advertise! Not only that but I don't live anywhere near Yorkshire (though it's common for agencies all over the country to advertise, or claim to, vacancies at the other end of the country). 

In fact after some more digging around, the only advert I can now find comes from a completely different site. Here it is (i can't guarantee following this link won't lead to some site attempting to put crap cookies and shit into your system). All it tells me is:

We one of the UK`s biggest sales and marketing companies who experiencing excellent growth and success despite the economic turmoil. 

And that they are looking for:

We have office in London, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and Bristol. We are proud to be working with some excellent UK businesses and to support our growth we are looking for talented Customer Service Representatives with a sales background.

I don't have a customer service rep sales background and my JSAg specifically says I don't have to apply for call centre work (which this most likely, based on previous experience with the prhase 'customer service', is) - for what it's worth.

This is the world of online application: a convoluted (almost as much as this post, which was originally an attempt to assuage my guilt) network of links and agencies that leads back to the start: submit your CV online to the CV Knowhow people. No wonder they were so quick to email me back. I find this bizarre, especially as, if this is remotely legitimate, my CV is not the resume of one steeped in customer service and sales. I couldn't attend an appointment tomorrow anyway - and certainly not smartly dressed (I have a smart shirt, that's it). Of course who would believe this sorry tale; this is just a rote example of the world of jobsearching right now. 

And Gateway Yorkshire are based in Leeds. I am not.

EDIT: As I submit this post to the digital ether, I'm looking at the Universal Jobmatch page. I'll have a more in depth look later, but I notice two things: above the list of jobs your search brings there are two phrases:
Jobs you have saved (ok, fine),
Jobs saved by your adviser - waitaminute...! More on this later I fear.
The search facility seems no less shit than the DWP previous site: a 20 mile search radius from my postcode brings up 40 pages of jobs! So that's 40 pages of recruitment agency spam, as well as jobs that are beyond 20 miles (which I can already see on the first page like Caerphilly and Torquay). Wading through this page on a daily basis would probably fulfill the Tories' desired 35 hour jobsearch commitment. What a fucking headache this will be!

EDIT EDIT: It gets worse, if you click on the advert there's a little box at the bottom where you can tell them (presumably your adviser) why you won't be applying for this job. As if you'd sign your own financial death warrant this way!

Dread part 2

A couple of days ago, foolishly, I rang Employment Plus on the number I have from their appointment letter. I wanted to know if I could be seen at a different time. It was really a silly thing to do because communicating with these people anymore than you have to just causes you to become more of a target, but I have been suffering really badly with anxiety these last two weeks. 

It got a little awkward because I didnt' want to speak to the adviser directly; as I've said before, he has failed to earn my trust (though I have to see him on Monday anyway). The person I spoke to said that she could email the area manager who would subsequently get in touch. I also mentioned, blurted really, my anxiety issue and that I was concerned about being seen by someone who isn't trained in these matters (which is to say their entire organisation). I never did get that call back.

Just been to the library to print out my CV to show them on Monday and i find that the adviser rang after I left. This means he spoke to the person I live with - and that is a big no no. If he has identified himself in any official capacity (ie "hi this is employment plus ringing") I will be fucking furious. I have a feeling that is the case because he called back ten minutes before I returned leaving an answerphone message saying exactly that which anyone would have picked up. 

This is absolutely unacceptable to me. There are personal reasons why I ALWAYS insist that people contacting me insist on talking to me and not identifying themselves thus. Most people - those that are not assholes - respect this. That my 'Job Life Coach' doesn't just further demonstrates to me that these people do not remotely consider these issues. Not only that, but when I contacted them two days ago I said that I didn't want to talk to him. I was told that the area manager, the person contacted regarding my call, was supposed to contact me. Instead, they have obviously passed this on to the Job Life Coach in question.

This is a major part of the problem with these people: it just doesn't occur to them to fucking think! They don't get these minor issues and considerations are important. It's clear that the Work Programme, certainly in my case, is bludgeoned through by agencies who do not remotely consider the finer issues of the people I'm dealing with. There is clearly a base level of operation they work on and anything finer or more subtle is just beyond their comprehension and ability; it's just about providing a minimal jobsearch, cv printing, envelope stamping, local newspaper displaying, level of provision - because these people assume that's all their 'customers' require. Anything else, such as personal matters or health issues or anxiety or whatever, is lost on them and they become, in your life, like a bull in the proverbial china shop. 

I rang the number back, I suspected it was the JLC because it was a mobile number before i heard the answerphone message (which of course I've deleted). I can't get a more convenient (ie earlier - which you might think would show more enthusiasm, but hey!) appointment because he's booked solid for a month. Again, it doesn't occur to them, when booking these appointments, to consider individual circumstances (most of those bookings, I'll wager, will be from more local people that don't rely on public transport for starters). I didn't argue the finer points nor did I mention appropriate contact etiquette as there'd be no point, the tactless horse bolted long before the stable door could have been bolted.

Then there's the worrying level of authority a title like 'Job Life Coach' assumes over your life. How far these people think they can intrude (and of course with customary indiscretion) and 'advise' I dread to think. It's deeply worrying.

I will also mention, for my own sake rather than anyone else's since I don't have to justify my living arrangements to anyone, that I live with a parent. As a grown man that likeluy offends many people's social sensibilities. Unfortunately it isn't that simple; ironically my family life has always been strained, particularly when there were more of us. That changed for various reasons and now it's more like a lodger/landlord situation. Why that should offend some people or tickle their social neuroses I don't know, but society has become a lot more judgemental. Unfortunately, also, my parent does not understand any of the issues I have to deal with and never will, so I ask people when they need to contact me to be subtle and discreet about it. Those that don't earn my ire as it really isn't much to ask and that people such as Salvation Army Employment Plus don't seem capable of even assuming this bothers me greatly.

Dread

At my first WP appointment the adviser, who must have had the info referred by the JC because he had my phone number, ignored the information regarding mental health issues. Not only that but he insisted that I explain those issues to him there and then, in a tactless open environment (even though there were only a couple of other people present). 

Immediately I became and have remained defencive; how can i trust this person in this context? It's bad enough that I have to explain medical/personal information to someone in a biased environment (ie, the Work Programme - as opposed to an objective clinical/therapeutic context), but when they have already set the tone by lying?

This is why I dread my new appointment, on the 19th. I had no say in that appointment either. I was not contacted and asked, again knowing that I have problems, what works best for me. There is no give and take nor is there any consideration of such.

I rang the Salvation Army Employment Plus head office and asked them about the requirements for this meeting: bringing a CV and an 8 week Jobsearch. Apparently I don't have to give them my CV (we'll see), and in both cases it's just 'to help us help you'. Again we'll see. I also asked about the provision of support regarding mental health issues, but was given a similarly glib response; something about staff having a wide range of expertise. 

I just don't trust these people. Trust is hard to give and easy to abuse. The sad fact is that these people don't understand this, which belies a greater concern: they are utterly out of their depth and motivated only to get results, hence the focus on Jobsearch. This in turn makes me more concerned: I suspect they will likely look at what is on my CV and my Jobseeker's Agreement and limit their help only to what's contained within. That to me, at best, is counter productive. What about finding a new career, what about training to that end or something similar? Fat chance when they can just refer to a DWP document I signed that sets out three categories - choices I made under duress (I don't choose, I don't get benefit) from a limited stock approved by the Jobcentre. What I want, what I can do, what skills and abilities won't mean a damn. For them it's the line of least resistance to the most profit, and if I don't apply for only those kinds of jobs - suitable or not - I can expect a Christian organisation to tell the JC I'm not playing ball and be complicit in a sanction.

I would like to know why these organisations are the only ones deemed suitable to run this beast of a scheme? These companies only exist to make money out of unemployment. They have no experience of anything beyond that. It's a vampiric existence. 

Why are we not letting universities and colleges, for example, offer provision? Are they not best placed to give training and find opportunities? Is that not what they do? There have to be better sources to help people, if we must endure the overriding capitalist systme which is the greater problem (and the root cause), than simply these for-profit entities that can't even get away with calling themselves 'social purpose' organisations? They aren't even charities; those that wanted to get in on the action (more fool them, it seems) have been royally screwed.

This is why I'm dreading my appointment. But that's an emotional response these peopel are not equipped to understand is a problem, nor to deal with.

Taking the Strain

This week hasn't been good. My anxiety has gone through the roof. I really don't feel up to dealing with full time paid work (part time you say? Not really enough to live on, especially figuring in bus fares). Of course I would say that; the phrase that will guarantee you not to be taken seriously.

I wen to see the doctor on Tuesday - a different one than usual as the arrangement of duty staff at my surgery is dreadful (I have tried to complain twice but get fobbed off by someone who simply doesn't understand what I'm saying). Same old story; they don't get it. I explain the consequences of being sanctioned, as a consequence of not being able to deal with this wretched system, but it just goes over their heads. It's the same old prejudice: why would you fall foul of the system? Only lazy feckers fall foul of the system - ergo it serves you right if you do. She wasn't terribly interested in what I had to say and tried to talk over me as I tried to explain that "you are not listening". It happens all the time. Then she pulls time on me "we're running into the time for the next patient", or words to that effect. I'm sure she'd say it wasn't meant to be as crass as that, but unfortunately that's how it came across. End result - no one listens. 

The only concession was I got her to write a note to take with me when I sign on tomorrow; something to mollify the impact of now doing as thorough a jobsearch this week as I fear they would like. Of course the note concedes very little and says 'he is medically fit for work' as there is no way they'd consider anything but. It's a constant struggle. 

I was told to go for CBT, again. This was all she was interested in offering me. I've been through the same course with the same people before; I'm not knocking it but it didn't work for me. CBT relies on having the awareness to step outside of yourself when you are having 'a moment' and deconstruct those thoughts. Of course that itself is the problem; if I had that awareness at those times I wouldn't really need CBT! Though if it helps others then fantastic. That was all she was interested in, other than offering me an appointment at the partner surgery (miles away) because she isn't rostered at my local, proper, surgery, like all the bloody doctors it seems - only to then check her diary and discover she's off for 3 weeks. When I point out that getting to the partner surgery isn't easy I'm regarded as lazy. I suppose refusing to traipse on foot through muddy fields and lanes in the pouring rain to a surgery other than my local one is a sign of laziness. That attitude is plain in the doctor's eyes and demonstrates their total lack of support. I asked about seeing the Community Mental Health Team again, but got nowhere. The other GP just rubbished them when I suggested it and I got nowhere then. Not really a helpful response, regardless of its veracity. I explained that too, but it makes no difference.

So I have to sign on tomorrow. I can only hope they don't piss me about as I'm really not in the mood for it. Hopefully my GP letter and the fact I have a WP appointment on the 19th will give them pause otherwise. 

I'm not really looking forward to the latter either. I rang the Salvation Army Employment Plus head office to ask just what the reason for wanting a CV and an 8 week jobsearch was for, and to explain that 8 weeks is out of the question. The person was all smiles and sunshine and contradicted the adviser I saw and will see again. All of these things are ostensibly 'to help us help you'. Of course! The CV helps their 'jobmatch team' find you the right vacancies on their own database - or something. They don't have their own database: the SA don't have special privilege with any employer to be the only outlet for their vacancies. Anything they have will be available through the usual channels anyway. Sounds like bollocks to me; they won't be keeping a copy for reasons I've explained before.

I also asked what services they offer, in regard to being told by said adviser that 'jobsearch' is the be all and end all. I was told they do offer training and help beyond that (details were not forthcoming, but then it was only a general enquiry). Their staff are, of course, called 'job life coaches', which is not very reassuring as these people are not trained in mental health support and I am extremely uncomfortable with the prospect of being compelled, under pain of sanction, to get into personal issues. The WP is most certainly not the place for such issues. I asked about whether they have training in mental health and was told they have a 'wide range of expertise'. That just confirms it. They don't

Second Date

Guess what just came in the post... my 'invitation' to a second date. With the Salvation Army Employment Plus. 

On the 19th I have a half hour appointment at a time I didn't make at a place that uses specific bus times to get to. It's a half hour appointment that ends 7 minutes before the bus home (during this I will also have to get my bus fare refunded). I say this simply because, in the language of Mickey Mouse and Han Solo, "I got a bad feeling about this" - I don't think it's going to end well.

The letter says:

"It is sometime since we had any contact with you and the Job Centre have requested we make an appointment to see you.

This I have made for the above date and time.

Please bring your CV and the last 8 weeks Job Search with you."

Then there's the conveniently BOLD threat warning me that if I do not 'undertake the activities required in this notification'....well you know the rest.

The next part is somewhat new:

"When you take part in the Work Programme, you are taking part in the Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme which is established in law by the Jobseekers Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011."

Hmmn. I think they are trying to catch people here who want to get around being mandated. This is because the letter ends by saying:

"The failures (ie failing to attend) referred  to are, if without a good reason you:

• fail to attend an adviser interview
• if applicable, fail to take part in a particular employment programme
• do not take the opportunity of a place on an employment programme or training scheme
• refuse or fail to apply for or accept a place on such a programme or scheme notified to you by your adviser
• fail to attend or give up a place or through your own misconduct lose a place on such a programme or scheme
• fail to comply with a Jobseeker's Direction"

 For a while I've been trying to hint that this is what's really going to happen to people that try and avoid the WP - not because I agree with these silly rules, but because this is how the state bureaucracy works. They are not on our side. So this talk of 'employment programmes' and 'not taking opportunities' is their way of saying 'if you don't engage with the WP (ie never mind how crap your provider might be, you have to make the effort to see them, not the other way around), you get sanctioend'. 

So there's no getting out of this, and if I leave bang on the dot at 3:30pm after refusing them a copy of my CV (they can look...) and not being able to provide a full 8 week jobsearch record I'm going to get into trouble I fear. I don't know what else is intended to happen at this interview, but it sounds to me like it's no different than the JC signing process: they look at your jobsearch and decide if it meets their standards. I object to this because that isn't the job of the WP; my contract is with the DWP as notarised in the Jobseeker's Agreement. I meet that, the adviser at the JC signs my search and I sign on. Why does someone else need to rubber stamp this...because they get money for doing so. Fuck whether this actually helps people (what support will be offered in 30 minutes, particularly in reference to mental health, and specifically from an adviser untrained and inexperienced in such matters in his capacity as an adviser).

With respect to the CV, I imagine they will disapprove of how it looks regardless. Of course my CV isn't that impressive, but that's not because it's full of spelling mikstakes or badgrammar, but because I don't have a competitive presence in the labour market. 

What I really object to is being told I have to reorganise or rewrite it. CV's are not just a list of qualifications or jobs; they are a personal statement and it would be dishonest in the extreme to have to rewrite it to bullshit my way through to employment and to appease an organisation acting solely for profit like WP providers. It's also wrong. In my core I have to express myself my way, faults and all - and that part is important - because otherwise the CV might as well be about someone else entirely.

Finally, an 8 week jobsearch record? What the fuck? As I've just said, the JC sign off my search record (kept using their documentation, I might add) each time I sign. Why does that then need to be approved by someone else? Not only that, but I go through one of their little books a month and they are not kept either. I dispose of them, and why shouldn't I? I have no need, nor have I been instructed, to keep them. Neither the Salvation Army, nor Jobfit, nor the DWP ever told me to keep them. That's why they sign them. If that isn't good enough for the Work Programme then thy should take that up with the DWP because why would a JC+ adviser sign off on something if it wasn't correct, for example? That I've successfully signed on demonstrates that my jobsearch has been adequate. 

Oh well! Two weeks to prepare for this. Here we go!

Changing Attitudes?

Ed Miliband surprised me the other day with his welcome comment that Britain needs a better attitude toward mental health. While I'm no closer to being his greatest fan, any such comments, assuming they are well intentioned, are to be welcomed. Especially when they come at the expense of cretins like Jeremy Clarkson.

This is a man - a professional journalist (although that's being generous) - that believes people committing suicide on train tracks are selfish. He claims sympathy yet refers to them, bizarrely, as 'Johnny Suicides' which strikes me as especially flippant.

This is also a man that, live on the BBC in the wake of the public sector protests of a year ago, said of such people that they should be shot in front of their families. So Clarkson speaks of his concern of the traumatic effect of a suicide on train drivers but advocates that relatives should witness the brutal murder of their family members - while the BBC production crew laugh. Is there more odious a cunt? 

On a related note, this clip (ignoring the horrendous nasal twang of the DWP representative) features a most welcome comment from an MP I don't know (the Scottish lady in the wheelchair). In this discussion about sanctions she raised the point I've made before a few times that some people with mental health issues (this is not just confined to mental health of course) aren't ill enough to pass the WCA and claim ESA (skip to about 8 minutes in). This was in the context of such people struggling with the system falling foul of the regime. Could this be a ray of hope? After all, the Universal Credit system will be a disaster as it stands; we can see the representative struggling to comprehend the problems his department faces and the paradigm that creates them. But the fundamental question remains: how do you help people that get sanctioned? What then? All the government sees is "we're being reasonable, tough luck, what do you expect us to do...just give out free money?"