Up For Hire day 3

I'm sure this is getting boring now. I'm sure that I'm coming across as a right little weasel; a lazy scrounger. Well I'm equally sure that's all true. But the thing is, I have a real issue with the way the issue of unemployment and it's satellite aspects are presented in the popular, or rather populist, media. I objected strongly to that awful Fairy Jobmother programme and I'm not really seeing much better in this.
The problem I have are the messages it sends out, explicitly or implicitly. The audience is predominantly young and successful - other than the actual guests and participants the audience are all successful young entrepreneurs. Well that's great, but we can't all be businessmen, nor I believe should we. So what we get are a load of glib statements and platitudes as advice: 'you've just got to get off your arse and do it'. But that tells me nothing. Unemployment, like most social issues, is in fact complex because it affects each individual as an individual, but the systems in place simply cannot, and seemingly will not, deal with them on an individual basis. Yet people are happy to make a profit from it all. As a result people are inevitably fingered as 'lazy' or 'scroungers' because of society's media compelled need to make comparisons. 'You've just got to get off your arse...' is such a statement, it's saying 'compared to me and all the other hardworking taxpayers, you must conform to our expectations'.
But that isn't how people work. Some might benefit from that advice, other's won't. It's a crapshoot, and those that don't become increasingly isolated exacerbating the problems. The fact that society has become so conditioned by the anti-benefits message in the predominantly right wing media just makes it worse. People are now wholly intolerant of benefits that they are happy to see them work for their benefits, even though that completely undermines the social contract of work and impacts on real existing jobs - after all how many councils are going to need paid street cleaners, for instance, when they can get local scroungers to do it for them?
I could, have, and indeed will in the future, go on about this more. As an unemployed person, long term (there's no shame in this, I didn't invent the capitalist system that both thrives on and condemns people out of work, nor did i vote for it), I have never felt my needs met or supported in the arena of employment and the work experiences I've had, which have never been pandering or luxurious (cleaning and tillwork), have been equally isolating, low paid, and thankless. So with that in mind, and in the interests of examining the reality of this show, here's my writeup for day 3, same format as yesterday.
Ok we start off by talking about working overseas? Is this relevant? Today's reality tv skit features the four students working for a plush wedding planner. Their mission involves scoping a suitable venue at a profit, and then finding something to provide the 'wow factor' (that will the be ONLY time I will ever use that fucktacular phrase) for the hypothetical wedding. This involves jetting off to places like the cote d'azur, and the med. Just like we all have to when we sign on. Honestly, what is the point of this? In fact one audient pointed out that without the cameras would these people have gotten a foot in the door - same as with the jobs advertised and applied for in the Fairy Jobmother. Is it really fair for a tv show with its unreality and edits to perpetuate certain veiws about unemployment.
Among the guests: some bird from ‘stenders and a model. So, an actress and a model to discuss the reality of employment? I wonder what crap jobs they’ve done that we can all now feel good about doing. Their contributions are pretty minimal; the model expresses almost indignant surprise that the students, above, in response to their first outing in today's show, can only speak English. Fine, blame the education system, not the unemployed. The actress from Eastenders turns out to be Danielle from Jamie's Dreamschool in which she showed zero interest or aptitude as an actress, despite Simon Callow being their teacher. In fact she won a trip to an American Biosphere project for her science work. Looks like that counted for nothing (did she even go? If not, what a waste!) as she got herself an agent, spent a few quid on acting lessons (presumably - I don't watch 'stenders, it's depressing and stupid), and cashed in her TV cache. All in time to appear on this show discussing nepotism. Am I missing something? Nepotism is one of the topics for discussion by the audience of entrepreneurs.
Tonight's jobs will be provided by Virgin Media and Scottish Power; all of which are not long term contracts so I don't know what happens when they come to an end. It wasn't made clear if this was a probation period; quite the opposite in fact, but no discussion of what happens afterwards at all. I’ve already commented about how suspicious this makes me. Agan the only applicants for these jobs were kids from this show - about 4 people are shown during the footage? Certainly they are the only applicants we see. It seems the jobs were advertised on the show's website; would they have existed otherwise - much like the vacancies in the Fairy Jobmonter! I would like to know why these companies chose to use this forum and not the wider labour market or DWP (assuming they didn't). It's easy, I know, to pass judgement here, but the media format and that, as I've said, it contributes to the ongoing anti-benefits tone of the national mood, leaves me very suspicious.
Now, and completely deadpan, a member of the Thai royal family makes the claim that nepotism isn’t an issue while talking about how successful he is having 3 businesses at age 23. Yes folks, it’s all about business. The business of blood. Aint’ it great though when other entirely random people offer singular anecdotes and propagate that as some kind of golden rule. That’s great, you’ve made a go of things, but how many people struggle? Especially when you live where the action is. If you don’t, then it becomes a lot harder. When you factor in a complete lack of support, or the fact that asking for support garners nothing but the resentment of the great and the good, it becomes even harder.This is the bottom line for me: people are different in every way and one size and thus one standard does not fit all.
More tomorrow from tonight; day 4 is the final night.

The Report

Last night there was a broadcast on radio 4's The Report (a show I've never before heard) about the Work Programme. You can find it on the iplayer; it was broadcast at 8pm.
I'm not going to discuss the programme in depth, suffice to say that one of the talking heads was my favourite Pauline-a-like, Hayley Taylor. I have zero respect for this awful human being and here laughable brassy northern brand of pop psychology. Interestingly though it transpires that she resigned from her job as arch single parent botherer at A4E, claiming that "I couldn't do this anymore". Apparently she realised how flawed their programme was.
What's interesting is that she felt it acceptable to quit her job (presumably because she had the money to do so and TV supsterstardom beckoned) yet can't accord that same freedom to others. For a month out she hectored and pilloried people on Fairy Jobmother, promoting tired cliches and values steeped in irrelevance and nostalgia, now here she is giving up.
Had that been someone in my position, or someone on the Work Programme, or trying to reclaim their JSA, they'd reap merry hell for that attitude.

Goodbye Hayley, Good Riddance

Professional at all times...

Yes, it was the last in the series of my favourite televisual trainwreck, the Fairy Jobmother. I'm sure, in these relentlessly tough economic times, she'll be back.

I've made my feelings clear about the show and this final episode clung to that formula I've come to know and hate. There was one difference though, the lady with mental health issues. What can I say; why was she even allowed on the show? Clearly not ready - and yet compelled to wander the streets of Southend with a big sign saying 'I want a job'. Good grief, it's sickening how low Channel 4 will stoop these days. She couldn't cope and left the proceedings part way through, never to be heard from again, not even during the epilogue. Erased out of existence. I also thought that Hayley's attitude could have been better: she's not giving up, she's not having a wobble - she's not well, and that isn't a crime nor is it some symptom of a lacking character or a lack of moral fortitude.

So in conclusion, what else can I say? Well what I will say is that this episode reinforces the idea that a lack of work breeds fecklessness and indolence. Even Sue had to correct Hayley that she, despite her problems, didn't idle her time away. Why continue to protray working in some dull as dishwater minimum wage job (unless that's what you choose to do freely, in which case good luck to you, since choice is what it's all about) as the only valid choice for a decent life?

People have lives; work is only a part of that. Why on earth do we continue to reduce human experience to such bland terms? Just for money? The unemployed (and indeed the employed) could be inspired to be productive in many progressive and elevating ways: art, music, poetry, writing, teaching, crafting. Why are none of these explored? They can elevate culture - they can make money. Yet instead we pay the unemployed a begrudged pittance and then criticise them for not spending every waking moment in such noble activities as cleaning up after other people. That's right Hayley had them using what looked like toothbrushes to clear up graffiti they themselves were not responsible for. Yet working people aren't compelled to participate for the benefit of their community int his way; so what happens if everyone is employed? Who do we get to clear up these messes as it seems we don't care about getting those actually responsible to learn the lesson of clearing up their mess.

I will finish by saying that I'm more convinced than ever that the jobs the clients apply for at the end of the show are clearly not what they seem; whether provided in agreement with Channel 4 or what, I don't know. But the whole thing is staged: jobs that are heavily subscribed by applicants with direct experience (the clients themselves lack). Not only that, but the day afterward they employers all ring straight back to pass on the stage-managed good news, one after the other! How many times have you been contacted the day after an interview to be told the outcome - never mind one after the other in this fashion. So no other candidates to interview, no decision making process. If that isn't clear enough evidence this entire farce is a sham then god help you.

The Church of Jobology

This post will be a work in progress, for now I want to make this first point in response to the third (and I presume final) episode in the televisual bullshitathon that is the Fairy Jobmother. That point is this: watching Taylor interact with that group of damaged young people/young adults was like watching a scientologist. I bet there'd be mileage in sending Derren Brown in to debunk this as he would NLP.
To ask the question 'how does being unemployed make you feel' seems an innocuous or perhaps even obvious question, but it's deeply pernicious. Not surprisingly none answered as I would, which is to say that I don't really have a problem with it (beyond the propaganda war that brainwashes people into believing that the unemployed are scum with idle hands motivated by the devil). Of course there are issues with being unemployed, but there are issues with most life circumstances. Quite why I should feel bad about myself for being unemployed is beyond me. It's a product of capitalist western society.
So of course the candidates all respond the same 'it makes me feel crap, i can't provide for me bairn' or 'i can't have the nice things the magazines and tv shows tell me i should have'. This is bullshit. It's the sort of knock 'em down psychology cults use ffs. Of course some will think that an extreme reaction, but i think it's extreme to film a conversation with a young man and tease out of him the most deeply personal revelations to an audience of complete strangers, including his sexuality! Where the hell is Taylor qualified to deal with that? (Of coruse behind the scenes there's probably a ton of vetting and setting up of such scenes, she's not a counsellor and they aren't going to chance their arm that the young lad might secretly be self harming or barely able to stop from suicide, for instance.)
She tells us, repeatedly, that the unemployed aren't doing enough; that there are jobs out there if only we'd just make the effort. Then she says 'ooh I know it's hard luv'. That's a mixed message and it hints at the show's fake self help premise. If it's hard then why does the show not portray this? Instead we are shown nothing about the actual reality of finding work or dealing with the harsh labyrinth of despair that is the JC+ and the difficulty some damaged kids have in dealing with the reality of their life experience, which has nothing to do with working and paying taxes!

The Fairy Jobmatron

On the Guardian site, after the first show of this ridiculous woman's second series I posted this. It's not grammatically sound and I don't really know why I didn't port it over to this blog, but that link presents my vitriol against this ludicrous TV 'show' in all it's grammatically challenged glory.

The second show now confirms to me that Hayley Taylor, in full David Brent guise, is neither an expert in unemployment nor in human contact. How someone can flit from scolding hard faced cow offering tough love as a patronising salve to confidante and councillor in the same camera frame I do not know. I'd be inclined to describe her as almost schizoprhenic. One minute she's giving her 'clients' (in the Hannibal Lecter sense of the word) the willies by talking about how the government plan to make them all work for their benefits while require they still attend their jobsearch responsibilities, then, after one poor girl starts crying, pretends to be here to help with a bit of hand holding. At best it's pop psychology, at worst it's irresponsible ignorance of client emotional issues (which, if you're dealing with the long term unemployed, is probably an important skill).

After that public relations disaster we learn that one of the 'clients' is homeless and, right at the start of their two week 'course' in jobseeking gets a 6 month JSA sanction. The exact reasons why are not explained at all, but what's worse is that this situation, leaving someone penniless and homeless for 6 months, is swept under the carpet very quickly - even the lad himself soon settles into the course routine and his troubles are all but forgotten. He is simply advised to make a claim for hardship payments (JSA less 40% with no guarantee of the claim going through).

What's disturbing here isn't that this isn't believable - in fact this is exactly the sort of thing that's happening right now - but that the case was all but dismissed. I'm highly suspicious not just of how Taylor handled the lad's case, but whether it was real in the first place. Firstly, if that was me I'd be climbing the fucking walls! No money for six months, nowhere to live! So I'm a little suspicious of the lad's (no disrespect to him) albeit shellshocked reaction - it was almost as if it were expected. But worst of all was Taylor's complete ineptitude: here's a very real crisis of the sort very real jobseekers have to face. All she did, aside from present her perennial look of 'well what do you expect, I'm a hard faced cow', was to ring the JC and then hand him the phone to deal with it! No discussion at all. Then he's left to apply for hardship and still attend the course.

Hold on! Isn't this situation and absolutel priority above Taylor's ridicuylous TV career? Why isn't she, if she believes in helping people, pulling out all the stops to get some kind of reprieve or help for the lad? At least that way he can properly focus on the course which otherwise he can't possibly be expected to do, having to worry about where his next meal or bed for the night is going to be found.

Not even a direction to the nearest CAB, posthaste, to get them on the case! Extraordinary.

The rest of the show moves through the predictable, glib and superficial routine established in episode 1. There are some ups and downs. The inevitable clash of personalities - all the more tedious given that ALL such instances are the sole fault of Taylor's bullish attitude. A facile and harmless release of laughter is turned into an episode of officious and pedantic recrimination, blown out of all proportion (ironically! :D). We get the usual 'me time' moment where Taylor is inexplicably invited into one of the client's houses to discuss their patently obvious issues (a young couple, both out of work, with the responsibility of a young child, the mother of whom is emotionally vulnerable).

Sometimes I wonder if this show isn't some kind of sick joke by jaded media types at channel 4, having a laugh, Shirley Ghostman style, at the unemployed.

The last hurdle Taylor's acolytes must surpass before their inexplicable and inevitable workplace interviews (jobs miraculously acquired without explanation from a dwindling marketplace with no explanation of how they were sourced) is to stand in front of the local Church Elders in their sunday best. A tribunal of local bigwigs: mayors, business mavens, i'm sure there's a pastor in there somehwere, and of course...Taylor. The clients, in their best thrift store 'interview clothes' (following a scene where Taylor vets their clothing like some kind of DWP Gok Wan - that'll boost their confidence then!) are presented, one by one, like some bizarre deb ball, to plead their case to society. All of whom say the exact same thing 'I feel i've got something to offer' and all of whom are accepted by the tribunal with grace. Even the young mum manages to get through without a nervous breakdown, how cute. All thanks to Taylor's coaching - of which we see precisely nothing. No exercises in CBT, no therapy or counselling sessions are shown. I guess Taylor must be really good! It's all so convincing.

Then the jobs appear! Vacancies in the local area, such as part time cleaner, apprentice joiner, washer upper in a hotel, are sourced by Taylor without explanation as to where or how. Not once do we even see the clients do any actual job searching. No discussion of how to effectively search or deal with the ridiculous DWP jobsearch engine.

Here's where the show gets utterly bizarre: the jobs, one for each client, are portioned out so that 2 clients apply for each job. This includes the homeless lad who, more than anyone else, needs an income. Nowhere are they encouraged to each apply for all the jobs, to incrase their chances - as is standard DWP policy! Instead the aforementioned is given the most difficult job: the apprentice joiner which has the stiffest competion (80 applicants).

Then we get to see them turn up for their interviews - dressed immaculately in clothes I can only assume the production team forked out for as they weren't the Taylor-approved attire they could afford on JSA. That's not mentioned either. From a back room, Taylor gets to listen in to the interview, turning to camera and offering praise when the client does EXACTLY what she wants them to (handshake offered too high? You don't deserve the job!), or making acerbic criticisms behind their back if they get a little nervous or flustered. It's ghastly and in fact quite nasty.

The final, predictable, end to this charade is that all (except one, Tim, a 50 year old former lab technician and small business owner, the most experienced candidate of all and the most quiet), found work. This isn't surprising, the rest were half Tim's age, even though he comported himself perfectly well during the interviews (to be fair, they all did - though they weren't applying for particularly expert or specialist jobs). Surprise, surprise as to who gets to be an apprentice joiner.

Honestly the show is a joke. As the credits roll we are given a glib status report, though there's no mention of what happens when his apprenticeship ends, or how much he gets paid during (or the standard of the other 80 applicants). I guess so long as it lasts more than 6 months he'll do fine!