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!