Skip to main content

Choice?

Isn't it weird. The Work Programme is supposed to be, as we all know by now, bespoke and tailored toward heloping the 'customer' (I don't remember buying anuything) achieve something meaningful. Not just be funnelled into the first job they happen to make you find by ordering you to search on basic jobsearch websites. As if those were the vacancies fhat needed filling the most.

When I tell them I want to be a writer (I have many interests, as I'm sure most people do; we aren't two dimensaional) they couldn't dismiss that quick enough. That gets classified as a 'long term' job goal; which is to say you get patted on the head for showing some interest in the idea of work. Then they get to use that 'interest' to compel you toward what suits them, not you.

Yet if I'd gone to college/university and become a writer on my own; for example let's imagine i'd gotten a degree in journalism and subsquently found a career accordingly, no one would be telling me I was wasting my time. I wouldn't have the Work Programme dismissing the idea and forcing me to apply for something i'm not interested in. "Well you wouldn't be unemployed", you might think. That's the difference; you can do what you like, but when you're on the 'payroll' of the state then your freewill as to your career amnd how you make money is forfeit.

I find that utterly bizarre.

Comments

  1. I suppose the reason for not allowing you to make becoming a writer your primary job goal on the wirk programme is a simple "well it's taxpayers' money ain't it? Why should taxpayers fund the dreams of the unemployed?" But this is a strange argument, since taxpayers fund all sorts of people's dream jobs via university funding, which allows people - as you said - to pursue their dreams.

    But make no mistake, we are approaching the point at which via the Work Programme the unemployed will become little more than government-owned indentured servants, forced to partake of any activity no matter how demeaning or dangerous. The future is forced labour for the jobless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The whole system is borked. It just doesn't help people; everything is entirely one sided. The social contract, which the JSAg represents in effect, is entirely biased against the individual. You are born, here are the rules obey them at your peril. Same with the JC: look for a job, do what we require and we might give you a few quid. No interaction or interest in what you might want or be best suited to doing, or what's actually valuable to a good society (as opposed to woriking in a call centre and harassing people daily, for instance).
      The future is indeed forced labour, and the staff at the JC will soon be joining us.

      Delete

Post a Comment

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…

U.N. and Them

What are my thoughts on this?

It's a humanitarian crisis. Is that a phrase we should only reserve for famines in Africa or force majeure? We seem to have a blind spot to these things when they are on our own doorstep - it couldn't happen here, could it?

Yes.

Seven years of the most brutal selfish and greedy governance, not to mention the least competent, has brought us to the point where the United Nations are telling the Tories they are causing a 'human catastrophe' amongst the disabled and the sick. This is not the first time, and even that doesn't include their comments on the hated and spiteful (not to mention ineffectual) Bedroom Tax.

Do the Tories persist with these policies because they actually believe they are correct or even moral?

Or is it because they have no other way to appease the media attack dogs and/or the braying Shirefolk that delight in persecuting the poor as they do torturing foxes and badgers?

Is it both?

We have a government, in a first wor…

Anybody Out There?

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

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

Thanks