Programmed - A Quick Sign On

My appointment, as I sit in the library briefly, was at 10 in the am. Fortunately I was seen reasonably promptly although there was some guff about a group meeting that people are meant to have with regard of the Work Programme. This came up because such a meeting was happening as I went in. I have no idea what that was all about.

Really the only change for claimants now on the WP is they get a smart new frontpage for their signing book and they don't have to go through a jobsearch at the JC - that's for the provider to accomplish. So the only thing to report (forgive me, there's nothing else to do in town while I wait for the bus - it's a nice library though) is that the process is more or less the same: you still have to bring in your jobsearch but that search is done via the WP. And, again tediously, the JC don't seem capable of sticking to a regular signing time. Each time I go in they have to book a new time for my next appointment, even though my signing book says 10am. It's a ridiculous system that I think even the frontline staff regard as stupid; it's just petty bureaucracy and it doesn't help people like me that have to rely on public transport.

FIRE! some more!

So I've just listened to Gideon Osbourne on the news and I had to quickly post. Not only does he just not understand that he and his gang of maniacs are to blame for the panic at the pumps, but he wants to blame the union!

This is what we're dealing with folks; there's no clearer message. Not only is it absolutely verboten and, more worryingly, antisocial to actually withdraw labour (never mind actually doing so in accordance with rules and regulations and not wildcat action), even the threat of strikes is enough to offend the state.

This is the thick end of the wedge for me, and I have no dog in this race as I don't even drive. If a union cannot discuss it's intention to strike - and of course if it didn't it would be blamed just the same - then where are we? Still think we're living in a democracy? This was clearly calculated action by a wrecking crew hell bent on breaking the backs of the unions some more and getting them under their heel. This cannot be condoned.

FIRE!

If I worked in a cinema as an usher and shouted "fire run for your lives!" during a busy performance I'd be sacked. Unless my name was Francis Maude, MP, of course.

How in the name of fuck does this man still have a job? Not only does he offer a limp and shameful performance on Monday in response to the cash for Cameron debacle, as the PM couldn't be bothered to attend Parliament, but he's back on the news, yesterday, calling for widespread panic!

I have never seen such a reckless narcissistic government as this. That this utter cretin, this ignorant stupid twit, cannot see past his own nose to the impact of opening such a Pandora's Box beggars belief. How on earth can he continue? The fire service are telling people NOT to stockpile combustible flammable liquids like petrol in their cars, garages and especially homes. But it's too late now, Maude cannot unsay what he has said, and that is why he must immediately go.

But he won't. The Tories live in their own little world. It absolutely wouldn't have occurred to him (he doesn't drive, either his chauffeur ferries him around or he gets expenses for taxis and private cabs) that his words were utterly reckless.

This government must now be removed. We've had the NHS destroyed, welfare reforms are going through if not already so, war on Iran will surely follow if the yanks pull the trigger, austerity hasn't worked and people are almost at each other's throats across the nation. What more is it going to take? We can forget about the coalition's 'social conscience' because it's obvious that Clegg and company are no less a part of the problem. We must now call for a general strike and push it through until these people are out of office. How on earth can we carry on as we are with these Bullingdon Boy maniacs?

Programmed - Tidbit

I just rang the Salvation Army HQ (their number off their website) ostensibly to enquire about the paradox of being in a position to sanction people - push them into poverty - while being a charity that helps people in need. I got through to the Employment Plus section, which wasn't actually my intention. I wanted to ask them as the master organisation because I was under the impression that Employment Plus was a more neutral, less religious, organisation they almost subcontracted to. Interestingly that's not the case. In fact when I asked if Employment Plus was as Christian oriented as the Salvation Army itself I was told 'of course' - in a tone that seemed almost surprised that I would even ask. I didn't push the issue and was told that they don't really like to put people up for sanction unless it's a last resort. Now I have to give them the benefit of the doubt on this, to be fair. Hopefully it's true, but I couldn't speak to anyone directly related to the WP (they're all in a meeting of course!). Whether their not being a neutral organisation, if what I'm told is true (don't know why she'd lie to me), affects WP provision I do not know.

Work Programme with Reed

Have a look at this. Here is a link to several provider action plans. Notice that Reed's compels the claimant to sign away his data protection rights. That cannot be right. There's no bloody way I'd sign this. Doesn't the provider guidelines for this scheme allow people the right to retain this? Isn't that a separate requirement? Is this even legal? If Reed are going to argue that it's mandatory to sign the plan (as I'm sure they do, even though it might not be), then can they legally include this as well?

On another note, Goonface Grayling (him again) has decided, in another act of tory hypocrisy, to offshore all the work done for the Universal Credit IT system to India and the like. Read about that here.

And if that's not bad enough, follow the link on this page to The Void to hear just how terrifying this is going to be. I doubt even David Icke could be able to construe something more Orwellian. I want this particular story to be spread as far and wide as possible. Unfortunately my posting rights at the Guardian are being more heavily moderated than I would like, but that's probably because I posted saying that Grayling should fuck off and die of cancer.

I hate that the Tories make me feel that angry, and that's why I said it. I don't really mean it because I'm better than them. But these monsters just bring it out in me. Divide and rule again.

Programmed - Action Plan Pictures (repost)

Someone asked to post images from the aforementioned action plan. Now I don't know why this was included, I'm sure it's intended to get me thinking about what I need to tell them when I attend as presumably that's when all this get's done. Here are the three most important pages. There are a couple more covering all the basic sort of info: name/qualifications, etc.

Pants!

This had to come into my orbit, who doesn't like knickers! Not only that Mary Portas' latest media vehicle plays to the undercurrents of jingoism and scrounging that the media so desperately loves at the moment. Portas is perfect for television: she's effervescent, bubbly (I loathe that word), peppy and likes whatever is current. That, according to her, includes British manufacturing for British knickers for British bottoms.

There have only been a couple of programmes so far, I watched last night completely and saw very little of the first. I gave up on the first episode because I could see where it was going. That episode concentrated on the issue of worklessness in terms of finding British workers for Mary's British factory to make Mary's British pants, to be called 'Kinky Knickers'. Ooo la la! (Sorry that's French.)

That first episode played to the usual media alarm bells: poor post empire Britain, it's beleaguered post-industrial workforce, unemployment. A particularly hard hit area in the north was chosen as the venue for the nine people, aided by former seamstresses, who will stitch the bottom line. The bulk of the programme comprised of Mary interviewing those candidates who a) have a media-friendly story and b) get hired (forget the rest of course, and there were a lot of people interested).

So I get to sneer a lot during this little post, but what annoys me is the way these issues are framed. We get constantly told how great it is to have a job and how these people can walk the streets with their heads held high and a new found purpose in life, and that, prior to their being hired by Mary, their lives were empty and meaningless. So again we get the usual 'pro work' propaganda that is, at the very least, a misrepresentation of the life of ordinary decent people. I don't like this. If these kids enjoy their nine month work contract (we don't yet know what happens after the inevitable success of Kinky Knickers) that's fine. But please stop this constant propaganda: self worth does not come from an employer. Unfortunately people are born so emasculated and disenfranchised and so shabbily treated by a wealthy capitalist elite that it's very easy to malign people on the dole as aimless, feckless and poor - of course they seem better off in work, they get more money. We saw that when they got their first weeks wages last night and they felt flush enough to go to the pictures and down the pub for a pint. Great, I'm glad they are happy. But that doesn't mean unemployment is anything more than a component within the capitalist system.

What interested me most, beyond all the usual anti-scrounger subtext, was Mary's attitude herself. She sets herself up as something of a saviour of British manufacturing and, in the cases of her charges, some poor souls on the dole. However one of those charges had to be let go; a girl called Lauren (iiirc) whose brash, somewhat loud, but ultimately benign (if annoying!) exterior made it difficult to get on with and despite genuinely seeming interested wasn't really learning the ropes as they all had to learn how to sew (none of the employees knew how to sew, though presumably some of the several hundred applicants that didn't get the job must have had some more relevant experience). For a programme which touches issues of unemployment her dismissal was extremely awkward.

What's worse is that Mary's attitude is no better. This is really what prompted me to post this. She's the employer, this is her baby, and she is no less of a child herself. When her lieutenants, the women who know how to sew knickers and are training the kids, explain to her just what's required for a finished product and what's involved in producing them (sewing on labels, tags, stacking them, etc - all the little details) she couldn't concentrate. She sat looking away constantly rolling her eyes with way more boredom and disinterest than Lauren ever displayed (despite being loud and easily frustrated she certainly didn't seem bored or disinterested).

This is her attitude throughout. The woman is a joke. Normally I wouldn't care, especially as most of this is probably manufactured for the storyline the show runs with. A storyline that, like the X factor, will sell the product for her. But when you're dealing with unemployment I think it makes you look even more ridiculous. Presumably these 9 people, facing over 10,000 orders, know they are only going to work for 9 months. What happens then? Do they quietly go back to the dole with a reference from Portas who will no doubt move on to her next TV project? It's cute to have some kind of pre-Olympics pro-British angle, but it tells me nothing. Why should I care if my pants are made in the UK? Aren't we a global village now? Couldn't you argue that clothes made in another part of Britain are equally foreign? They get 'imported' to local shops were local staff will sell them to me. Certainly there are very serious issues with practises such as outsourcing and offshoring and what have you, but that is all part of the capitalist system. Why doesn't she tackle that, or tax avoidance? As far as I know the nine kids on her books are being paid no more than the NMW.

Just more flag waving for the Jubilee/Olympic year that really solves nothing.

Programmed - This Is Your Threatening Induction Letter!

I have my appointment for the 3rd of April now. I have just received the letter/induction details including an action plan. Now this is confusing. Firstly the action plan isn't filled in and it's not clear if they want me to fill it in or, if not (and I don't think they do), why this is included at this stage. Is it meant to be a work in progress or something? Along with the usual 'if you don't attend...verboten' warnings it says that they will start an action plan during the first meeting.

However, the agreement, on page 3 (out of 5 painful pages) has a part for me to sign and the adviser to countersign. Again no mention that I should sign this now (like hell!). However it does contain the following text:

"For Mandatory JSA Customers: if you do not undertake the activities required in this notification your benefit will be affected"

The agreement that I'm to sign reads:
"I agree with the content of this plan and the outcomes identified. I will attend my programme for the hours agreed. I also understand that I will have to complete periods of work placement during my time on the programme".

The fuck? The Salvation Army (and it is definitely them) are going to compel me to 'work placements' - in other words workfare.

Now that's if I agree to this - and there is some contention as to whether I am legally obliged to this. Or, more pertinently, whether or not my refusal to sign can affect benefits. I've been told that, according to DWP information, signature of this plan isn't mandatory. Whether that means they assume you are going to agree with it anyway I don't know, but my fear, as it always has been, is that regardless of who's right, they will just cause trouble if you don't agree to play ball - even if you are legally entitled not to sign this nonsense.

Also, no one wants to get into a ruck with people like this, and so it's going to take a lot of nerve to politely decline this without them getting all passive aggressive (or just plain aggressive). This won't be easy. But it sounds, according to the wording, that work placements (with all that entails) are compulsory. What do you say that Mr Grayling? I seem to recall you using the word 'voluntary'!

The following couple of pages list 'milestones':

"Milestones to meet any barriers arising from customer's personal circumstances customers that may affect his/her ability to sustain employment" (ineplicable grammatical error theirs, not mine), along with "Planned date of achievement" and "Date Action completed".

Well that's good to know that complex and inhibiting mental health issues, including incurable learning disabilities and/or neuro diverse conditions can be so easily dealt with and 'completed'.
There is also "Milestones to meet customers on-going training and knowledge needs" likewise with a date for completion planned or otherwise. Of course I won't know how to answer this which gives them carte blanche to provide none. I don't know what help is or might be available nor what would best help me so easily lowered expectations are easily met.

Then we finish with start dates and contact details for the job they will of course be procuring for me that will be a long term career goal or whatever they want to call it, and the following above a box to sign:

"I understand that my employer will be involved in these in-work support arrangements and I give permission to share information with my supervisor or line manager as the representative of the organisation that employs me. I agree to meet the in-work targets outlined in this plan."

Waaaaaitaminute....what in work support targets? Why would I have to meet them (as opposed to the people responsible for this apparent support)? I can see no mention of this at all in this action plan. How many supervisors and line managers are going to want to or have time to deal with these things? How many employers are going to hire someone with all this baggage, for better or worse, over the thousands that don't have this (and probably have more experience)?
There is also, finally (finally!): "Customer Declaration (No Employer Involvement) - I would prefer not to involve my employer in these in-work support arrangements but I would like continuing confidential contact with my adviser to support my employment. I agree to meet the in-work support targets outlined in this plan."

So they win either way, I have to fulfill their requirements even in work, despite this plan making no reference (at this point at least) to such targets, and thus they get paid.

This is getting sinister. There's a lot of heavy duty stuff here. I need to be sure of my position before I enter the spotlight and risk even a sniff of a sanction, because for people on the pittance that is JSA even that's enough to really cause problems - and we all know how long they can take undoing that kind of damage. I think I will tell them that I am certainly not signing all this stuff up front; it looks like they will bamboozle me with a ton of info/requirements/plans up front and if they expect me to agree to everything frontloaded like that, well sorry. No chance. Later on perhaps (not really!).

Programmed - This Is Your Wakeup Call!

Just got back after a stroll in the fields on what's almost a lovely spring morning. Something I never take for granted these days, but something so delightfully simple and refreshing. I think I'd go mad without being surrounded by the green and wild hedgerows of rural Britain. It's the simple things in life, but that's me - I'm a simple person and nature is free (though not if Fuhrer Cameron ever got his way I should think).

Anyway, enough Last of the Summer Wine, Jobfit have contacted me to book my Mandatory Work Programme Appointment (or whatever the buzz phrase was, it all washed over me, like splashback from a nasty du - well you get my drift :D

So it's Jobfit that are the overall provider, but, although they didn't say, it's the Sally Army that are running it on the ground. In fact the helpful Eastern European accented call person said the only alternative was another town (between both venues I'm equidistant) which happens to be the only other place nearby with a Salvation Army venue. So there it is; I'm called for duty on the 3rd of next month at ten in the a.m. Conveniently they aren't open when it would be the most convenient, which is bizarre given that the Salvation Army hall is (because they serve tea to old dears and I've used the toilet before going across the road to sign on at the JC).

I will never understand just why these mandatory kinds of schemes are so inflexible: they want people to attend, they want to force 'help' upon them, but they don't actually want to make it easier for that person.

Can't wait. Now I just have to make sure I'm up on all the stuff I don't need to and don't have to sign. I did have to verify my address and date of birth on the phone, but I guess that can't be avoided.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that during the phone call I was asked to confirm my goals as set out in the Jobseeker Agreement (the three job types I agree to look for, though I have piss all interest in them). However this was edited to include writing when sent off to the provider as they are meant to help me achieve this goal. That's the point of this programme. But the caller separated those goals into short term (ie what they are going to focus on) and long term (which they will leave you to get on with, despite the remit of the Work Programme). I insisted there was no distinction - and there isn't; the Jobseekers Agreement doesn't separate. It lists three job types and that's it.

Programmed - Intro Leaflet Breakdown

I really am not looking forward to being conscripted. The worst part is that I have to sit around waiting for the damned phone to ring. That could happen anytime, calling me up for service. I don't deal with that situation well at all. Of course they don't think about things like this, instead you get a referral letter warning you of the consequences of failure. Same old stick no carrot.

On top of that I have a leaflet from the Jobfit people, the standard minimal pre-induction crap. It's worth a closer look because I suspect that, if actually called into question, wouldn't be taken seriously at all.

Firstly it says "Removing Barriers" talking about a professional service tailored to each individual's needs and supporting customers to overcome any personal problems and issues preventing them from working. Good to know, then, that I'll be dealing with trained therapists, counsellors and psychologists (like the person I have been dealing with who tells me her voice carries no weight with these people). It's not tailored at all; my first need is dealing with having to travel to the venue which is a) not local and b) a great source of anxiety. Of course they aren't going to respect that, the Jobcentre don't. Yet previous organisations that I have dealt with (independent from the benefits system, which is a major difference) were able to meet in a mutually agreeable public location like a cafe and were happy to do so. It would probably be cheaper for them. But as this is being handled by Jesus and Co. it's not likely they'll shift. I pray forgiveness for them.

"Championing Ability" tells me that they will recognise my skills and abilities with a view to building on them and applying them to the labour market. Well there's the first problem, I don't want to be marketplace chattel and fodder. That's not the human experience I signed up thanks very much. But really, what are the odds they will provide training?

Then it tells me about "Delivering Sustainability" in respect of achieving long-term employment outcomes. So that should be not forcing me into a job I don't want and aren't suited for.

Three straightforward principles right off the bat that already I'm extremely sceptical about. Perhaps I'm just too cynical. These days? Yeah, right! Now we have the "Customer Minimum Service Standards", helpfully printed in green and black.

I will be made to feel welcome and treated with respect with the chance to have feedback received appropriately. I shall certainly hold them to this right off the bat. If they can't respect the conditions and issues (the ones they claim they can cure as just explained) then already we have a problem.

Next it tells me about the 'welcome call' wherein I will be told when to turn up for the first induction appointment, oh joy. Well again we have a problem: limited bus services make the already troublesome issue of travel difficult, I doubt they will take that into account (especially as local funding cuts mean the timetable will be completely rewritten in a couple of weeks). Then a letter to follow this along with an 'induction pack'. Goody!

I'm also told that I can expect good quality advice and guidance about careers (presumably the ones they approve of that aren't of my choosing, despite all the above promises) and the resultant action plans and steps I will of course be expected to follow in pursuit of that. Great, I hate all that shit. It's pointless because you can't plan outcomes for job applications, and it's only there to give these people some purpose while they tell you what to do under threat of sanctions (which of course they don't mention in their service standards).

Then we got to the creating/updating/rubbishing your existing CV section, application forms (thanks but I can manage to answer a series of sensibly asked and worded questions, that isn't the problem I have). It also mentions, along with the usual rubbish about interview techniques (be polite, pretend to be interested, don't dress up in Nazi uniform or covered in excrement, hope that your interviewer isn't a twat) as well as 'accessing the hidden jobs market'. What the hell is this? Hidden jobs? This sounds like more rubbish to me: if employers want staff they'll advertise as broadly as their remit allows. If a job really is hidden it's because it's internal and they don't want John Q. Jobcentre applying for it, it could be a specialist position advertised in trade magazines. What a waste of time: they try to make it sound as if it's some special knowledge they, as a provider, have access to that, if you're good enough, you might be blessed with accessing. Again it's this complication of the issue that makes the problem.

I can also expect to see my adviser fortnightly, much like the Jobcentre who do the same thing, to 'make sure' I'm getting the support I need 'and moving forward to get a job' - that last bit sounds rather sinister! What if you can't move forward at that moment? What if your problems are really getting on top of you? What if your anxiety is getting the best of you? What then? Prayer? Confidence Building Seminar with Mike Dynamo that will pick you up in some superficial radio 1 stylee? Some issues are a bit more serious and a bit deeper than can be tackled with NLP or buzzwords bandied about? But hey, let's all think positive party people! Corporate bollocks is great! Ugh, not for me - again the sort of thing that makes my (apparent) neurodiverse/aspergers/not aspergers/add/what the fuck it is go into overdrive.

To top it all off there's the codifying of the above into an action plan which no doubt I'll be compelled to sign (along with all the other stuff which may or may not be optional, as others have discovered). Finally there's mention of the complaint's procedure: a string of increasingly more powerful line managers culminating in an independent case examiner. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. This final part contains one of the most curious parts of all: the plain it speaks of details "the level of contact and support that you and the employer have agreed to, once offered a job". How many employers are going to want to be in this position when, as is more likely, they can choose someone else that doesn't have all this baggage attached? More importantly what happens to someone like me in that position, no doubt I will be seen as not having played my part! This is sinister. At the very least this kind of required (as it seems) employer participation means that the jobs available to you will be limited, so again what kind of choice will I have over my own future?

No doubt I have been rather negative throughout all this, but that's because I can see straight through the rhetoric from the get go. We all know how much bollocks some of that is, but it's still written. Will they take it seriously? Well they will pay lip service to it, but when it comes to concrete action I doubt they will do more than most people these days and pass the buck. That's the corporate culture these days; you get it every time you ring up a call centre. This is no doubt part of the reason places like Jobfit subcontract; if there's a complaint it just gets pushed back and forth and never dealt with. The JC can't deal with it as the Work Programme effectively neuters them, that's why The Psychologist can't get involved (though she could at least try, it wouldn't have hurt).

My guard is up and I shall be holding them to account on every part of this. We've heard all along how great this scheme is, from the likes of ratface Grayling, so I expect it to deliver. But even from the get go they aren't respecting me. I suspect it'll be no different to my time (mercifully short) with Working Links a few years ago: all smiles and support until you got there and then a complete about face that left me questioning my own sanity!

Programmed

It's zero hour. I have been referred to the Work Programme. The dreaded Work Programme. The great Jobcentre referral process tombola has sent me to Jobfit whom I have never heard of (but then why would I). The venue is the Salvation Army building directly over the road. Does that sound relatively benign? Who knows, but I'm not a Christian and don't plan to be.

According to Jobfit's website, they work in partnership with (which I take to mean they subcontract to) Salvation Army Employment Plus. So now the good old Sally Army has gotten a seat aboard the Unemployment Gravy Train. I can't say that inspires me, but I can't be sure how all this works, nor do I understand why all these companies subcontract to and from each other. I suppose the obvious answer has the queen's face on it.

I'm not sure how I feel right now. That funk of anxiety blunts everything. The world seems at once too bright in terms of sensory stimuli and yet too dull. My thoughts are engrossing and encompass too much of my consciousness. Perhaps I should try meditation again. I'm on my own with this, I have to wait for the call from the relevant provider to compel me into action. I do not like waiting for phone calls, and I could hear from them anytime. That isn't something that's positive for me either. I'm dreading this for sure, so I suppose that's how I feel. If the venue were nearer that would, perhaps inexplicably, make all the difference. That however isn't going to happen and I don't know of any Salvation Army facility closer to home. I used to quite enjoy travelling around on buses and even trains, there's something uniquely comforting about the train, it's its own thing and doesn't have to use the roads with all the traffic, but now I feel more anxious about it.

My signing arrangements have also now changed. I have a different signing time; the JC is too prone to tinkering. Every time I go in they've changed the parameters of their diary system. Now it seems certain morning slots are not available at all. Yet they know, and even my Adviser understands, that I need this routine. As a consequence of the WP the process of signing is supposed to be more straightforward as the WP provider shoulders the jobsearch burden, even though I still have to bring my jobsearch. I'm willing to bet pounds to pence that the process isn't simplified and that the adviser I see will, at the very least, waste mine, and thus all the other people's, time as well. Signing appointments regardless are supposed to only take ten minutes, but the tinpot Hitlers seem compelled to scrutinise everything to the point of annihilation and just waste time for everyone. It' snot like a doctor who, understandably according to the needs of individual patients, may require a longer appointment or even a shorter one.

I can't find much on the internet about Salvation Army Employment Plus (plus what?). Is this a new scheme? I've tired their main page and there isn't much there. I hope they are positive, as I have no choice in this. The referral letter is of course quite clear, shall we say, about my choice in this matter. It's always nice to be spoken to with an air of complete distrust.

Still Not Much Help

Lean times for people that need help or even just want to do something different. I've managed to prise a letter from my GP as he has now spoken with The Psychologist. Not surprisingly the letter tells me next to nothing. I still have no idea what the test I undertook was actually for; it wasn't to get on the sick, and it wasn't to give a diagnosis. This is the same language used by the Fit Note culture: telling me what the test was not for is not telling me anything. Similarly telling people what a person with disabilities can do is ignoring those disabilities. And to what end? So they can be shuffled into the great queue for jobs. Worse, the queue for the average sort of work (ie the only sort of work) you will find via the DWP. So something like writing from home isn't ever going to come through that system. The letter does acknowledge that, while in principle arbeitmachtfrei - sorry, work cures all (that's what I meant to say of course!), in practical terms I need the right sort of work.

But that's not how the jobcentre works. I face the prospect of being referred to the Work Programme when next I sign (Friday, the sense of dread is already peaking once again - something my GP has no understanding of either. I'm amazed I haven't turned to drink or weed this far into my life). I've already been told that The Psychologist isn't interested in supporting my call for the right sort of help there, because, according to her, they are not compelled to listen to her. Does that mean she shouldn't even bother to rubber stamp a letter from me telling them what I need? What happens if it transpires they aren't interested in listening to me either?

That's the problem, and that's what no one I'm dealing with seems to understand. My GP seems to think that between them the 'job shop' as he calls it should be helping me appropriately. Unfortunately as we all know the reality as experienced by people on the front line having to deal with the DWP and its partners, nothing is ever so simple, nor is it guaranteed; and unfortunately for me raising this point isn't being pragmatic - it's being negative. That, according to the new right wing religion, isn't allowed.

Not Much Help

Just as an epilogue to this week's shenanigans, I get a call from The Psychologist. She suggests helping me write a letter that can be presented to the Work Programme provider, now that Work Choices is out the window, telling them of my needs and issues. This sounds like a good idea until she realises she's actually too busy to do this. Ok, I suggest emailing her a copy of this proposed letter that I will write on my own and she can, most importantly in my view, rubber stamp this: put her name in her official capacity to it. Unfortunately while she's happy for me to do all this, her name won't carry any weight with the provider and so refuses.

It seems these providers are under no obligation to listen to the DWP regarding such issues as the state/health/wellbeing/whatever of a particular client. They can dismiss or ignore everything The Psychologist might say or agree with. So of course the obvious question is why would she think they would take me anymore seriously. Well of course I'm the person the programme is meant to be tailored around. We all know how that's turning out and how much say clients get in this matter, under pain of sanction; and of course without support materials such as this, without official approval, I have nothing to back me up. Again the client is left in the twilight zone of uncertainty dealing with all this inhuman unfeeling machinery.

That she can't even be bothered to sign off on it says it all, as far as I'm concerned. She's all bluster and no muster. What's the point of her? Something even my GP wants to know. Though I doubt he will see things as I do. Again they just don't understand the reality - the nitty gritty day to day bullshit - that people go through dealing with the DWP.

Programmes and Choices

So the soap opera continues.

I spoke to The Psychologist this morning and if she didn't get the message then the gods only know what she thinks.

To cut a long story short it seems that again more promises made turn out to be not quite as gold as once they glittered. Pluss is actually subcontracting, locally, for my dear old chums, Working Links! It's a postcode lottery, not much further south the Shaw Trust, whom I've spoken with before, are working on their behalf. What a tangled web they weaves with public money.

Work Choices itself sounds exactly the same as the Work Programme - which itself makes the same kinds of noises about helping people with health/mental health issues. Eight hours of weekly jobsearching was mentioned, which led me then to question how they are going to provide that if they can meet me locally. This was the reason I accepted Work Choices over the Work Programme; the ability to see me in a more convenient less austere location (something that Shaw Trust amongst others had managed to do before). Turns out that's not going to be possible. I met Shaw Trust in a local garden centre cafe; Pluss won't be that accommodating at all.

I found all this out myself by ringing them directly. Took me about half an hour. Meanwhile the DA still instist that she has to meet me personally to refer me to Work Choices (well that won't be happening). The Psychologist insists that she's being helpful, and round and round the carousel turns. Nothing moves forward, everything is thrown back at me and yet I'm the one the only one able to get the answers I need. You have to fight these people for every morsel of information about what they plan and how their schemes work - and then you have to verify it independently for yourself. I still don't understand why the DA - who isn't a doctor or a medical specialist or therapist - can override the recommendation of the DWP's own psychologist (who recommended Work Choices). I'm told the DA has the discretion to do so, but won't.

Well anyway it's Hobson's Choice: Work Choices or Work Programme. What's the difference? Of course we all know there isn't one. Both of these schemes will be the same, both of them will insist i spend time (8 hours pluss) looking for work which they will then compel me to apply for. The Psychologist is adamant that these are both flexible 'bespoke' schemes that are meant to be tailored in agreement with the customer for his benefit. But again that's just bollocks isn't it; we've all read enough anecdotes now to seriously call that into question. Of course the DWP and it's staff can't be seen to understand this and so the reality of these schemes - and whether they will be able to offer practical help not just compelling me to apply for everything and anything while forcing me to jobsearch for an arbitrary time period - is the elephant in the room.

How can you even set a time for jobsearching and insist, week in week out, on that being kept? I search and it takes as long as it takes. It's like asking how long is a piece of string and expecting a fixed measurement each time.

Meanwhile Maria 'killer' Miller, the disabled minister (lucky them!) closes down a bunch of Remploy factories. Whatever her reasons and however fervently this lunatic believes in them, I cannot fathom how putting a bunch of people out of work will help them. Again the logic of the Tories escapes me: it's the same crazy reasoning as applied to workfare - making people worse off somehow betters them. How are people, and people with disabilities in this case, now supposed to compete in the increasingly competitive labour market for fewer jobs. This sick and vile government have now lost all pretence to reason and compassion.

So Helpful

Fuming!

I am not a happy blogger right now. The bloody jobcentre, whom I have told to be 110% discreet when communicating with me (if I must have them contact me by phone at all), have just disregarded that entirely and told the family member I live with that they are from the jobcentre. This is a big deal because I have tried to keep that a secret because I really really do not want to have to deal with the grief of explaining I am a feckless scrounger to someone that will not understand. I know they won't understand.

It is not for the bloody jobcentre to question this. It isn't for them to say 'well they should understand' or whatever. It should be enough for them to respect my wishes, that I have made a thousand times, not to blurt out 'hi is Mr Whistler in, I'm from the JC' - along with whatever else she said (if anything - I have no idea). All that's needed is to ask for me; if I'm available then we can talk. I have a real problem with phones anyway (that's why I don't use a mobile - plus the cost of the damn things and the awful companies involved), I find them intrusive and I don't like having discussions with anyone in so open a fashion. But that's me; those are my insecurities. If the staff at the bloody JC+ don't understand that, that's fine - but they should respect that.

The worst part is that the person concerned is the Disability Adviser. This stupid woman has rung me up, while I was out doing my weekly shopping, and spoken - to some degree or another - to the family member I live with. Now I am not going to delve into my family details here, that isn't the purpose of this blog. Suffice to say that mine has not been a happy home and that my family has been, shall we say, behind closed doors, very dysfunctional. It was not an easy thing to live with and certainly not something you can discuss in polite conversation. So for this silly woman, the Disability Adviser of all people, who should know (having spoken, presumably, to The Psychologist), that I have issues. They are a matter of record from my prior ESA claim.

Now I have to wait for her to ring back before end of business today, as apparently that's what's going to happen.

These bloody people really push my buttons right now, but god damn if the system won't accommodate people with problems and issues coping with this bedlam of a society we have right now.

Fit World

I don't think disability is allowed anymore. We all know tolerance of the disabled/the sick is declining. But I think institutionally organisations such as the DWP even acknowledge the reality of such conditions anymore. It all started with Labour - or was it the Tories appropriating their policies in the wake of the election (while blaming labour for creating the problem their policy was set up to 'solve')? The introduction of the 'Fit Note' to replace the traditional sick note. Now the doctor is supposed to say not what ails the patient but what he can do.

Unfortunately in real life what a person can do is not a million miles from what he can't. I also find this revisionism rather iniquitous: I would go so far as to presume that the disabled (if I may be permitted to generalise) take ownership of their conditions. That is, a person's disabilities are not to be denied or something one should be ashamed of; they form part of who they are.

I see this now with The Psychologist. She happily performs her neurodiverse diagnostic test (or whatever the hell it's supposed to be) but when pressed about what the outcome - the actual result - means I get nothing. I'm told 'it's for me to decide what to do with my life' (?). It's not for me to claim on the sick, it's not for me to seemingly acknowledge any condition that may inhibit my ability to work. In fact she goes on to tell me that I can of course work; this may be true, but it ignored the whole picture.

There in is the problem: this Orwellian - ubermensch - approach ignores the totality of a person and their conditions, good and bad. No good can come from this. What good is it for a person in a wheelchair that could work at a desk in an office if that job offers no wheelchair access to the venue? What good does her fit note do for such a person? We must spread the message there is no shame in disability, and if a person cannot work in the conventional sense then it is the mark of a compassionate society that we care for them

Dance For Me!

The Telegraph has an odious piece of low rent propaganda.

All these lazy thick illiterate innumerate unpunctual young people that don't want to work suddenly become a hit with employers when they are working for naught!

These are jobs that could have been advertised normally that people could have applied for and been processed for surely?

Only 4 of the 15 'experiencers' were taken on by the company in the piece. That's just over a quarter employed as a result. It's also unsustainable: they can't keep taking people on, not even as work experience.

Companies aren't going to be able to sustain this are they? It's a policy based on a snapshot moment of the current workplace/labour market conditions - in fact it's advertised success (which is nothing of the sort) is dependent on the failure therein.

From the piece: “It’s work experience – the clue is in the name. Nobody is going to give you a job unless you’ve got experience first, and that means working for free.”

Straight from the mouth of...?

But hang on, what does 'nobody is going to give you a job' supposed to mean? This poor woman has brought into the government propaganda hook line and the proverbial sinker. If there are vacancies in these workplaces that are being filled by a small percentage of these slaves then surely the employers are going to give people jobs - because that's what they want. They want the staff! But now they get to have their cake and eat it, courtesy of the government, at the greater expense of everyone else on the scheme. The boss class has their pick of the litter while the candidates for jobs that otherwise would have had to go through a proper and objective vetting/application process get to sing for their supper.

Britain: racing to the bottom in the 21st century.

Today at the JC

Having just signed on, fellow travellers, the journey continues. The communication between Psychologist, DA and also GP is slow. Why? Who knows, but at the same time I'm constantly reminded of the JC's urgency in getting me onto the Work Programme or some such. If there are people that think the unemployment service is run well then please tell them to seek medical help. It seems that the DA has the final say in whether Work Choices, a scheme sold to me on the basis of being the best suited for my needs, is indeed suitable.

But the Disability Adviser isn't a doctor; my GP is a doctor, he knows me better and would probably endorse (and how !) my entering this scheme. The Psychologist is a doctor (well you know what I mean), and she suggested it. The DA however isn't, and is more concerned, it seems, how much it might cost the DWP (as opposed to the Work Programme, which of course is free isn't it! Er!).

Anyway I'm repeating what I posted yesterday. Mind you that was a stream of consciousness masquerading as insanity so I'd be surprised if anyone could follow that!

I was given a work from home opportunity to apply for this week. The job involves researching information from websites, whatever that means. It lists a btinternet email address and a company I've never heard of. Now for all I know this could be the greatest opportunity I'll ever see; it could be 100% legitimate. Or it could involve me giving sensitive information (bank account details, NI number, etc - whatever is needed to log me as a proper working person and to get paid). How can I know for sure? Does the JC vet the positions they receive? I bet the answer is no. Having agreed to apply for this, I'm committed to that course of action and have to see it through on pain of sanction. Is it really too much to ask for these jobs to come with as much of a rubber stamp of legitimacy and security as is possible? As far as I'm aware anyone can submit a vacancy with as little info as possible, and that's certainly the case here.

The Insanity of the Jobcentre

I think I'm at my limit. The cup is full, sir. No more can I take of the Jobcentre and their bollocks.

Where do I start? Well when last I signed I had the meeting with The Psychologist to discuss the results of the test. That results seem to say nothing other than I might have ADD/Dyspraxia/Aspergers/all three/something else/'Non Verbal Learning Disability/Anxiety/Depression/Stress - or...? Well who knows. She told me the waiting list for an official diagnosis is around a year so having this test has really not accomplished much, but I presume it's meant as supporting evidence toward that end...if and when a diagnosis slot becomes available. Meanwhile I have to deal with the DWP, including facing the Work Programme. Barring anything else I'm meant to get referred to that tomorrow.

However another choice presents itself, by way of The Psychologist, a scheme called Work Choices. This is sold to me on the basis that a) they can meet me locally (which has worked out well before when I self referred to organisations in the past, and b) they are (apparently) better suited for people with problems, like me. Presumably then that's she told me about them. Ok fine.

So the day before I signed last the Disability Adviser, who works part time and not on the day I'm actually in the bloody JC, rings me up out of the blue because apparently I'd agreed for her to do this. I hadn't. She tells me about Work Choices as well. So the following day, during the meeting with The Psychologist, I say 'yes I'll meet with them' (as opposed to a Work Programme referral - those are the choices). She then agrees to sort out a referral; between her, the DA and my regular adviser, she says that'll happen and I won't have to come in to meet with the DA in person, which is something the DA seems to want me to do, insisting it's necessary though incapable of explaining why. The Psychologist knows I find the JC a difficult environment and seems sympathetic and, more importantly perhaps, helpful.

So I just get another phone call from the DA again wanting me to come in and talk to her. She asks me if I'm free to talk; I am. Then when I ask her what information she needs, as she seems to claim, for a referral, she can't tell me. Why? I'm free to talk, I've just agreed to that. I tell her that The Psychologist said she would arrange the referral without me needing to see her and that it will all get sorted out. To be honest I was expecting to receive a letter from them to that end sometime this week perhaps.

Nope, they can't even do that. The Psychologist hasn't said this so of course, as the untrustworthy claimant, I'm talking bollocks. I don't relally understand why there needs to be all this hassle. I don't understand why I need to be physically present in order to give her the information she seems to want for a referral and she refuses to ask me over the phone (as opposed to an open plan office where anyone can hear). The DA claims it's her decision whether to refer me to Work Choices; she says there are limited places. I don't get why that's relevant - am I supposed to be grateful, like I've won a concert ticket and backstage pass or something? I've already expressed interest in this scheme (which may well turn out to be crap, but at least I'm prepared to meet them), what more do you need?

But here's the real kicker: the only other choice is the Work Programme. I'm sold Work Choices because I'm told it's more suitable for someone with mental health problems. That's why The Psychologist brought it up as an option. I have to go onto one of these schemes, so wouldn't it make more sense to refer me to the most suitable one? If that's Work Choices then sending me to the WP must mean that the WP isn't suitable - so how is it meant to help me? The DA defends her reticence by saying that she's signing off on DWP funding for this course and so therefore it has to be suitable. Well it might not be; it could be crap like all the rest of their efforts - but at least I'm willing!

Again, what is the alternative? If Work Choices - a course sold to me on the basis of being more suitable for my needs - isn't appropriate (and therefore I'm wasting the limited places on offer, and the DWP's money), what is? The Work Programme? Well if that's the case, why are we even having a conversation?

If this makes any sense to you, then please explain it to me, because I'm lost! I really cannot deal with this crap anymore. In fact even though my GP isn't much more help because he doesn't get it and doesn't want to listen when I explain things (he keeps interrupting me), though that's another discussion, he doesn't understand what The Psychologist is meant to be doing. She wrote a letter, pending and promising a fuller report (I've no idea when that will be), for me to pass on to him. He read it and was completely lost: just what are these people doing?

It makes no sense. They seem to offer help (and all this assumes it is worthwhile help) and then take it away. They say they can do something, and then don't. They tell you that you need to get referred and then don't want to know. I've had it now. I think I really need to get my GP on side. So far he has been reticent to write sick/fit notes because he thinks that it's better to get the right kind of help from the likes of the JC, but I think - I think - even he's beginning to see what I mean when I explain they don't help. He's meant to be contacting The Psychologist, but god knows when that will happen. I need a lie down or a stiff drink.

Small Victories

Embarrassed and shamed - well maybe that's too much to hope for - the government has changed it's stance regarding sanctioning kids who don't participate in 'work experience'. Of course it would be very easy to point out that, given Herr Grayling has claimed all along the scheme is voluntary, they are contradicting themselves. A victory is a victory.

But the work can't end there. Many other work fare schemes exist with many more capitalist supporters; the government has done it's best to wheel them out this week. We still have Mandatory Work Activity (capitalised because it's a component of the Work Programme) as well as the vile Community Action Programme. The pressure must be kept up on these disgraceful schemes. Work experience surely must include the experience of being paid: not just a simple handout of free labour to the supermarkets at busy times of the year. I've been through the arguments against this lunacy before, just to say that it seems far too easy, to my mind, for these organisations (state funded!) to just call up the local Tesco or the charity shop next door and gift them with free labour. All with no thought as to the purpose of these schemes - they are meant to be giving people experience. What experience do people need in entry level retail?

The sanction regime seems to remain. What has changed? What use is sanctioning someone? WHy are the Tories so blind to think that forcing someone into destitution, poverty, possibily criminality and dependency going to help them?

On 5 Live yesterday morning Peter Lilly let slip the Tory mindset in response to a question about work experience. When asked if he'd done any unpaid work he blundered through a telling comment implying that because of their hours being an MP was unpaid. This did not go by unchallenged. That veneer of decency these filth have tried to build over the last decade or so comes off so easily. It's not even as if he was joking either.

He was followed by reality tv wannabe Thatcherite rentagob Katie Hopkins, known less for her actual business accomplishments (if indeed any exist) than her appearance on the Apprentice and other media outings I can't be arsed to research (the woman annoys me). Again she resorted to the just world fallacy: if only the unemployed would ask 100 odd people what they want doing for payment they'd get a job - just like her no doubt! What bollocks. Turn up at someone's front door, a complete stranger, ask them what you could do for cash and you're likely to get told to leave! As if people even have the money to spare for random strangers to do them work. You might as well turn up with an Irish accent and offer to tarmac their drive! Again she was put in her place.

So it seems there's a groundswell of resentment for what the Tories are doing. I hope it continues. I hope this is just the foundation for a long standing development. WE need these Tories out: Cameron's response, in the House of Commons where he continually plays to the gallery with nothing to say, just to call us all job snobs and trotskyites! It's venal, it's pathetic, and it's desperation. And it's all underwritten by our friendly yellow bellied Liberal Democrats!

We are becoming serfs again. This government is trying to take the very land we stand on that should be our right, or at the very least our means to support ourselves. If we must be thrust into this awful competitive marketplace then at least give us something to sell. But I don't want to live in the marketplace. I want to go to sleep at night and wake up knowing I have the means to take care of myself, without having to compete for that right against my fellow citizen. That's where our problems come from and that's the heart of the Tory divide and rule that's been in overdrive over the last 18 months.