Skip to main content

Signing on 20/1/2012

Just signed on (I'm in the local library). Gave a whole load of blather about the test I've had with The Psychologist and the doctor. I'm sure it means nothing, but it makes me look 'good', I suppose. It's all a game really: one has to be seen to be doing something. Unfortunately, in the process, I found myself agreeing to apply for a job that I'm not remotely interesting that is also both very low hours (I'd be much better off on JSA) and temporary.

Of course the argument is that it's better than nothing, helps get you 'back into work', and all the usual silly cliches. I wish there was a way out of the system. The job advertised 6-12 hours (they can't even be sure which). Splitting the difference at the NMW gives me around £55 a week. The problem comes not from our 'something for nothing, too lazy to work' culture, but from the fact that there are extra benefits from signing on; it's not just financial. I get the cost of glasses/eye appointments and the like paid for. All of this goes beyond the mere £65 that people receive. While transport costs won't necessarily be an issue, as the job is local, it just seems to me a waste of time. The jobcentre machinery threw this position up, and it's temporary (though it doesn't say for how long), so while people may think it's better than nothing etc, it's just really keeping you in the same place. Anyway I'll ring up the contact number (recruitment line) and see what they say; they've probably had a ton of applicants anyway.


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.



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…