Five Live Unemployment Discussion

I missed it as it went out live, but I'm writing this as I listen to the iplayer repeat. It's broadcast from Salford in the wake of another rise in unemployment. I guess it really is the price worth paying for the unstoppable juggernaut of Tory ideology. Let them eat cake, eh Gideon?

Ok, so the show starts off with a couple of people saying who they are and how long they've been unemployed. Then suddenly some mouthpiece from Morrissons (nice free advertising there, reminiscent of last Summer's BB3 Jobfest bollocks piece that I commented on) saying they are creating 7,000 odd jobs this year. Of course they won't be saying how poorly paid those jobs are, especially given that the big 4 supermarkets are the third biggest employer (together) and that's right after the NHS. Megabucks for the boss class, free advertising, and shit jobs for the rest of us. Fortunately Sainsbury's have had the sense to pull away from the government's workfare frenzy, not so the rest of them. Does that include Morrisons? I don't know, but maybe corporate shill Richard Hammond might. Or Chris Evans, another vacuous overpaid supermarket millionaire. Mr Morrison's is followed by someone from a utility company I've never heard of, more applause. I suspect the Hangman could receive the same applause if he showed up to offer work.

Now this discussion was first mentioned after an earlier episode discussing the Work Programme. Lots of people rang up to say 'the WP stinks'. Curiously, Chris Grayling's seemed instead to hear 'the WP is the best thing since sliced bread'. Perhaps his radio was affected by the smell of money wafting from the unemployment gravy train.

Now a young chap is talking about his experience applying in a theatre highlights a salient point about the ludicrous nature of some job interviews. The job, apparently, was bar work in a theatre, darlings. We've all had these crazy interviews; one in particular, for WHSMiths, features a board game. This game was basically an empty board save for some random items culled from the shop (the board was empty, by the way, the pieces came from shop stock). We rolled dice and, when we landed on one of these items (the sellotape for instance), had to sell that item to an imaginary customer! I doubt even Lord Sir Alan of the Sugar Apprentice could do the hard sell on a round of sellotape, or a pair of scissors, or a pencil! Everyone palpably felt how utterly fucking stupid it was. I didn't get the job.

And bingo, the first goal is scored: someone comes out and says 'the government doesn't know what it's like' in respect of the pittance that is JSA. But that will never change. It is core to the ideology of the capitalists that JSA should be low. They fundamentally believe that, if it were increased (it's among the lowest rates in Europe), everyone would give up work. They believe that welfare is a lifestyle choice in that respect. Tells you all you need to know about the Tories: know thy enemy. They hate welfare and they hate claimants. The speaker is living with a mortgage she can no longer afford.

Three politicians are introduced: a Tory whose name I can't remember or spell, someone called John Leech (or Jon, I don't know) for the Libdems (so two Tory contributors then) and a Labour person called Emma Reynolds. They are asked if they could manage on JSA and the latter two admit they couldn't while Mr Tory dodges the question. This character is all over the place; he's nervous, and he's on the defensive. I expect him to resort to trotting out the usual Tory propaganda and try and bluster his way through.

Another speaker, more vociferously, challenges Mr Tory to live on Jobseekers for a week. At this point the Tory does indeed resort to type: yes folks it's Labour's fault, they maxed out the credit card. Excuse me, I must vomit. Ok, back. Ugh, sometimes it just takes a long time to get the taste of Tory bullshit out of my ears. Now Emma is talking, in response to that point. Ok, she's pushing at an open door here. To be fair, she doesn't overplay the card. Good move, I'm no fan of Labour but it's their fight to lose (and so far they've lost every time, but then they are no less right wing than the Tories).

The spotlight shifts and a speaker from Church Action on Poverty (something like that) raised the point about work paying by way of mentioning the poverty wages that some people earn. I hope we come back to this issue, but for now a young man called Matt is laying into the Tory MP (Sam someone or other, I'd look it up but I can't be bothered). He knows what's going on; it's privatisation all the way. That's what all this Work Programme (which I'm sure we'll come onto) is all about: privatise the JC+ and give it over to the likes of Emma Harrison to make more money from.

Over to the John Leech now who is, in my view, comfortably equivocating. He mentions Nick Clegg's Work Experience scheme that has had some success (51% apparently) getting people back into work within 13 weeks. I don't know this scheme, but that may well be true, but given the lack of jobs out there, this initial success rate is naturally unsustainable. I think he's being a bit disingenuous here. The jobs will dry up and the spotlight will move away to another scheme in another area run by another provider and so on.

Over to Norman (his name, apparently) from Morrisons; it seems the local community wanted him/them to come up with 'pre-employment schemes' (the usual confidence building bullshit) so they delivered. But what about the quality of these jobs? Supermarket work ffs! Is that really what we want for our society? A nation of supermarkets. I've commented on this before, but I don't believe a job at any cost solves the problems our society has. It might make a given applicant smile (assuming the wage isn't a joke).

Michael, a trained teacher, speaks now. He's noticeably emotional in verbalising his feeling of humiliation - and the suicide of a young graduate who couldn't reconcile her qualifications with her exoperience trying to find work, very sad and sadly very unrprusing. That's the effect of months (years, to be truthful) of right wing propaganda. A society so browbeaten that the supermarket sector can come in and prey on these people. A society so cowed that it believes willingness to do anything is less gullibility (the boss class don't care) and more a virtue. This is categorically NOT the answer, but that's what hardworking Britain's are told to believe by the newspapers that routinely claim to be the voice of the taxpayer and the conscience of the great and the good. Fuck that and fuck their ideology. I'm looking at the DWP jobsearch page as I listen and it's the same selection of crap. Am I meant to be thankful for these opportunities? A job packing petfood? Fuck off!

And now we have some twat that wants to play the John Galt card. "Why do people always blame someone else?" Right out of the Paul Dacre Playbook. The answer is they don't. Move on.

And move on we do (i'm not discussing some upwardly mobile twat's worldview, sorry)...to Hayley fucking Taylor! Oh fuck me, so much for an informed debate then. I wonder how many people will bring up her propagandist crap on tv. That said she is pointing out the damage that unemployment can cause. Well ok, fair enough. But that doesn't excuse that awful populist Fairy Jobmother crap.

Onto the jokeshop, sorry I mean the Jobcentre, now. This should be good - which is the opposite of the opinions provided. They are useless, but that's no surprise to us. We know how they don't help. We hear comments about how the JC staff are themselves looking for new jobs. Some guy, used to work for Connexions, says he's better off out of work than enduring the target driven uber caseload culture! Interesting. I am a bit concerned with the view coming forward regarding how the JC are not helpful and don't do much; while this is true, the threat of sanctions is not being discussed. The implication of further distancing people from society is huge and giving the JC more authority over people regarding their jobsearch efforts is far too dangerous.

I think, now, I'm done. This debate has tired me. It's like watching people flailing around in a pool of water, rather than getting to the real meat of these problems; ie a discussion of the system - capitalism, I suppose. We can talk numbers, we can talk about how the Jobcentre is rubbish, we can talk about how we are prepared to do anything for a job or to look for work. This isn't enough: we need a fundamental change - a sea change - in all areas of society. We need to evolve beyond notions of competition: the audience applauds when one person says they just got a job. Well that's great and I'm not churlish, but that's one job less for others to apply for, and the rest of the cohort that applied for that job will be grilled by the JC and blamed subsequently for their failure to beat that person to the punch. This debate has told me nothing, but for those interested it's up on iplayer on the Victoria Derbyshire show, today, 15/2.

Thy Father's Bike

Here is an interesting piece, with accompanying video, from the Guardian. I don't know what the significance of the self help books the article mentions are, but the rhetoric from the provider is palpably ignorant. I find this kind of nonsense self defeating because all it seems to do is set the reader up for failure - and then, when they inevitably look to place blame, get criticised further. In other words, if you don't 'self improve' it's your own fault, and you have to 'own' that. Taking responsibility for your own actions is one thing, taking responsibility for conditions beyond your control and the consequences thereof is another.

I find this very worrying. It cannot be healthy to programme the minds of 'customers' (that awful word again - it implies a freedom that isn't there) to believe, as Richard from the article does, that it's all your own fault if you don't have a job. It's the customer's fault they aren't working. If only they would make the effort; if only they'd get out of bed in the morning; if only.... It's insidious, but this is the tone of the Tory paradigm and it's getting stronger. If only the sick would rise up and work they'd be better, they'd be healed! This is monstrous ignorance!

I don't think this is healthy at all. I think telling people it's their fault they didn't look hard enough - that the 10 applications they made each day last week should have been 11, for instance. It just sounds like an easy out for the provider; an easy way to wriggle off the hook. I think it sets up the 'customer' for a fall which will (further) harm their self confidence, their emotional well being and perhaps any existing mental health problems, such as depression. This is compounded by then compelling them to look harder and to 'keep trying' which will only exacerbate the problem: the more they put in, the more crushing each rejection becomes. There's no room to take stock, to even allow the 'customer' to catch his breath even. Then of course we will see an increased rise in people turning to their GP for a sick note. It's a vicious cycle.

(PS: I notice this site has had 5000 visitors. I hope they've got something from this, certainly as much as I have for writing my lefty loony liberal thoughts and experiences. Thanks for reading!)

Who Benefits?

I mentioned before that I was given a job to apply for last time I signed on (last week). Ignoring that it was not advertised correctly (there are two jobs and both are permanent, not temporary), I really do not see how pursuing them benefits me. Of course I was compelled into this, in my opinion, by the adviser. This is one of the biggest problems with the jobcentre: the pervasive air of disapproval that makes you feel you should agree. That and the threat of sanctions, explicit or otherwise. The adviser was pretty adamant I should apply for this. Of course they cannot articulate this beyond a vague belief that it will somehow do me some good. But will it? Let's explore this.

Firstly the job is 12 hours (the other position is 6 hours, so we'll ignore that straight off). I will financially be about £7-8 better off than on the dole. That's not really much of a difference. There are no expenses incurred through working as the job is within walking distance. But of course if I signed off (see below) I would not get any of the extra benefits involved, such as optician costs, dental costs, free prescriptions etc. This is part of the safety net.

More importantly I don't get my stamp paid. This means that I will have to make up the difference from the money I get paid, which is hardly fair. I'm working, but not enough to pay income tax nor NI - but that cost still has to be paid or I don't get a pension. So who is really benefiting if I take this position? The employer gets a much cheaper labour force by taking people on part time in this way because he doesn't have to pay NI for his staff. But that cost must still be paid.

Could I remain signed on? If I did I certainly wouldn't get any money for it. I might still get my stamp paid, but I would still have to abide by the terms of the Jobseekers Agreement, which defeats the point of getting the job. So as well as having to avoid working when I need to sign on (which unless they changed the day would be impossible) I'd have to pay to get there to sign on and still be seen to be looking for work. Is this really the best way to help the unemployed?

I find this a crazy situation. I'm contributuing nothing toward society for doing this job - which isn't even something I aspire to anyway. I don't need to be given work by a shop in order to have meaning in my life, so I find the Tory ideology very suspect (it's about compliance let's be honest), I'm not 'paying my way', I'm not even providing for my future. I'll be either forced to work against my own interests if I somehow managed to keep signing on, or I'll be stuck in a monthly paid job for a pittance. Not only that but if I don't keep signing on (and frankly I don't want to - that's the whole point) then I'm cast adrift from the support that's supposed to be there, through the JC, to help people back into work. The Work Programme is meant to be tailored to help people into proper sustainable work (as opposed to a 12 hour NMW job), but that will not be available to me if I'm cut off from the DWP by working. Of course whether the support programmes such as the WP are any good is another matter entirely, but let's assume for the sake of argument they are.

Then there are also health issues, even in a part time job. When I first visited the doctor regarding my hypoglycemia (or whatever the fuck it is, some kind of metabolic nonsense) I asked him how I would manage this condition while in work. To that day I have not received an adequate response. People, including doctors, just cannot take this seriously. You are told things like 'other people manage', and that, because they do not see this as a serious condition, you are fobbed off. This of course only makes things worse. I still don't know how I'd manage even a 6 hour day without more than a 30 minute break throughout. Of course noone is going to let me take breaks every two minutes, especially in a part time job, but like it or not (and believe me I'd rather not have to deal with this condition) it's a reality I have to deal with.
The fact there is no support, I feel, is actually a factor that works against me. It's not taken seriously enough and so I'm left lingering with no help. All I was ever told was 'take a packet of biscuits with you'; yeah because employers like staff that stand at the till stuffing jaffa cakes in their face.

The final argument is of course the moral one: the 'rightness' of getting people working, even if only for a few hours. That's what I will be told; in fact that's the argument that persuaded me to go through with this even though I knew better. Two 6 hour days is nothing - and that you aren't doing any of the things people value about work (ie paying your way and contributing to society) I'm just cheap labour for a clothing retailer. It's not even as if I'll be working for a good cause - a charity or something that tangibly helps people. It's just selling shirts and shoes!

Jaffa cakes, I'm reliably informed, are not technically biscuits. Life is just too uncertain.

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.

Up For Hire

(WARNING: I may edit this post as I see fit because my thoughts on this issue will develop and evolve, but I wanted to get something down before I lost interest.)
I chanced upon this last night by innocently flicking over to BBC3. This awful programme, ostensibly providing 'advice' and discussing student/post-grad unemployment, really wound me up. All it seemed to consist of was a competition to see who had the most and crappiest job history, including contributions from 'famous' people, including some Scottish woman that runs a knickers company (something we can all do, I'm sure), and Frankenstein's own drag act, comedian Russell Kane. What is he going to teach me, the need to achingly follow superficial concepts of appearance? That's great, but I don't want to wear mascara. The whole affair was hosted by Richard Bacon whose delivery is just awful; it's like listening to a stalling plane.
The programme featured 4 young people at least 3 were students with the other a young mum (i don' t know their exact circumstances, I missed that part). All out of work. They were then inducted into some reality tv segment featuring them given various jobs in a holiday/fun park of some kind. Taken completely out of their comfort zones we get to watch them manage as best they can with tasks such as becoming a performing clown (literally), working on the fast food joint with a queue of many unhappy looking campers eager to slosh transfats down their gullets, or mucking out at the petting zoo. One lad had to prepare 60 bags of candy floss (which is probably easy if you know how) in a time limit.
Naturally their efforts were met with varying degrees of success and failure, which is to be expected when you throw someone in at the deep end without any training, especially in a busy public environment. One girl, dressing up as a clown, made the mistake of commenting to the camera that she had a degree in journalism and that grease paint and oversized shoes weren't for her. How dare she! In this economic climate we need all the people throwing confetti instead of water that we can! Of course they edit the choice parts and leave the rest on the cutting room floor.
What amused me most was their 'boss' who took the whole thing so unbelievably seriously as to be a caricature. When the lad fell short of his candy floss target the guy seemed to take personal umbrage - this is the real world son! Fuck off is it, it's a farcical parody edited to make a bunch of reasonably smart, articulate, and well behaved young people look like lazy slobs. Their only mistake was the young mum (their names, I know not) who, after working on the till of the burger joint during rush hour, received second hand criticism that she was 'abrupt' despite being very friendly with the public the rest of the time. Is this how we treat people now? Stick inexperienced people into a busy unfamiliar role with a queue of slack jawed transfat junkies and when they fail to wear their smile 100% all the time like a beaming ray of perpetual sunshine we berate them. Unfortunately for her she got defensive - with all the cameras - but then who wouldn't. Are we made of stone? No encouragement, no support. Sink or swim.
But that's what it is these days. In this era of competitive mas unemployment it's sink or swim and we've mortgaged the life jackets, bad luck.
The whole programme just smacked of this kind of grim competitiveness that I hate. We were not meant to live like this. When there are hundreds applying for a single position the odds are that any one candidate will fail - no matter how competent they individually may be. Isn't that the situation that needs addressing? No we just seek to find fault: their CV is one word too long, or too short. Their hair needs cutting. This or that. Employers don't have time to read a thousand CV's. Well make time! You want applicants, what do you expect?
Now we hear a bunch of people, such as miss millionaire from ultimo knickers, tell these kids they should be prepared to do anything - such as dress up as a clown or feed goats. Yet that's exactly what they did and have done - and where has it gotten them.
If we all subscribe to this race to the bottom what's left? The issues surrounding this social disaster of a state we currently live in are not beign addressed. Why can't someone that's trained as a reporter be given an opportunity to be...a reporter? What good will it do her to force her to work as a fucking clown? Are we all meant to be grateful for whatever crumbs the pigs throw us from the table as they snuffle at the trough that anyone not willing to lick more toilets than their neighbour is now seen as public enemy number one? If we want a better society with better standards for ourselves and subsequent generations then we are going to have to start demanding them, and not pumping out puerile crap such as Up For Hire. No, far better to get people to seriously consider walking around town adorned with sandwich boards, just as Hayley Taylor recommended in her awful Fairy Jobmother show. It's the same thing. The same kind of hectoring rubbish that avoids the real issues in the way our masters avoid taxes while telling us we have to 'take responsibility' (this kind of avoiding the issue is something Cameron is very good at).

Every Little Helps Part 2

I never (as yet) heard back from Tesco. Thankfully. I do not want to contribute to the demise of my village. Not that the DWP would care, I imagine. The private sector is the great and holy saviour.
A quick trip in light showers of an early Autumn evening to stock up on Minstrels and I got chatting with the one local shop that's most in danger from this new development. They are on the same side of the main road (that runs through the village) but a little ways down. As such they are particularly reliant on passing trade. Well that's seriously going to be curtailed.
The manager isn't happy.
He points out, and I've noticed, they're advertising cash machine and lottery facilities - while the planning permission for these has yet to be granted. Another local shop applied for a cash machine to be fitted and was refused. That shop ain't Tesco. He tells me that he's been waiting 6 years to get a lottery point. It seems that he can't have one because there is another shop that does the lottery and they'd have to concede ownership. That's not unreasonable given the size of the population and that shop (the same as wanted to put in the cash machine). But these shops ain't Tesco.
So am I to be forced to work for a company that's going to be responsible for putting others, family business all (without exception), out of work? Where does the private sector draw the line? Doesn't the government care? I thought they were all about small enterprise? Perhaps not when it's Tesco.

Zero Hour

Seems a good metaphor for the current, post riot, state of our nation, though that's not what I'm going to discuss. I have made various comments on the Guardian comments pages over the past week. I even considered a diatribe on here, but the whole thing has made me very depressed. In fact this last week has exacerbated my anxiety to new levels. I had two episodes of hypoglycaemic stress last week (where I feel like I'm going to faint and have to eat, it's made worse by anxiety - or perhaps vice versa). How the hell I'd function in a strict workplace environemtn I don't know. I'm not sure I really want to either. Post riot, Britain seems to have forgotten the rule of law overnight and entered a whole era of fascism where liberal=scum (even more so). I don't condone violence at all. I condone political opportunism and ignorance even less.
Zero hour contracts are something I've heard about a lot. Benefit Busters focused on some kids at the A4E gulag forced to apply for such positions in a cake factory. Recently I've seen a few of these jobs on the DWP jobsearch website over the last week. What's the point of even bothering?
There are now routinely a few jobs, usually 'customer service' which the DWP categorise under retail even though the jobs are almost always call centre work, which I abhor. I hate them. End of. They are all advertised by what appears to be a meta site: a job website that seems to exist by collating (or perhaps stealing) adverts from other sites, usually agencies. There are plenty of sites like this, and they are all very unhelpful or poorly organised. The problem here is that the advert gives no information and is clearly a cut and paste job. The point of contact is an automated email that provides no answer at all. You are meant to just email off your CV and that's it, which is ridiculous. What about information? All that happens is the DWP office that uploads these ads just trawls the web and copies from these ads and posts them as proper jobs, the same as if an actual living breathing employer had done the same, on their site. This isn't right. There's no accountability and if you complain you are just regarded as lazy.
Not only that but most of these jobs probably don't exist. There I said it. They are also largely temporary offering a minimum number of hours, usually far too low. You therefore end up employed by the agency - assuming you can get through to them. I got through to an agency last week about a job packaging pet food (which I would NOT have done, I don't care what anyone says I'm better than that - we all are ffs - but it doesn't hurt to enquire). End result was just that: minimum hours = zero and you are working for the agency. The job was temporary but they couldn't tell me how long for. So it's just casual work. What a waste of anyone's time. Why are the jobcentre focusing on gigs like these and not helping people into proper career based employment?
I have just finished browsing the DWP site for today (I do it daily) and another such job was listed. They named the agency concerned, even though the ad says ring such and such a person to apply. I never apply without first gathering ALL the information, and why shouldn't I? I googled the agency to find a place in Cheshire (the job's in Bristol) and a search of their online database comes up with no vacancies at all.
I then googled the phone number and find it registered to a hairdresser in Wrexham!

Jobsearch Fun

Signing session...I've lost count; the days blur into one now. It was my second time with the advisor assigned at the 13 week period. Another waste of time. The JC+ approach, mechanism and system is just too flawed.
The interview proceeds after I turn up ten minutes late. Fortunately my JC isn't staffed with people that want to stop your benefits for a week because of such things, especially when they are caused by bus timetables.
The formality of signing done the inevitable search on the system begins. This is just ridiculous: it says right there on my search record that I use JC+ website every day. I do it every morning; it's pretty easy to do especially as half the time it comes up with nothing. What is the point of asking me to look again? Either accept that I have done this, or don't ask me to keep a record! One one hand they want you to develop self confidence to apply and procure work, but on the other they are quite happy to enforce a policy of complete mistrust.
However their in house system isn't the same as that used by the website (and the job points that 'customers' are advised to use). I quickly notice vacancies that weren't advertised on the website - not that my pointing out how flawed the website is gains me any credibility. They just don't believe what you say.
As the search proceeds I feel the pressure to accept the invitation to apply for three jobs. Two of which are completely unsuitable. One's a retail management job that will be impossible to get to to say nothing of the level of responsibility involved that I don't feel comfortable with nor do I desire professionally. I'm not interested in a career in retail, but the JC aren't interested in hearing that because a job's a job. No support for anything that might be suitable or that I might be interested in (how about working from home?).
The second vacancy is for the library which wouldn't be too bad but for the fact that you have to deal with a great deal of screaming kids, especially over the summer, as they have lots of reading schemes for kids. Now don't misunderstand me: I think these things are great and anything tha encourages reading in kids is worthwhile - I, on the other hand, have no interest in dealing with kids. I find it difficult, I don't have kids (nor any desire to) and have never ever felt comfortable, as an adult, in their company, for instance when I visit friends that have them. Besides the job requires you be available to cover in libraries throughout the district. Due to the rubbish transport provision this isn't possible.
The third vacancy was another of the usual agency adverts. Digging around I find that it was (and I've seen this before) copy and pasted directly from another jobsearch website; one of the meta sites that gathers jobs from various agencies in the local area. This practise is ridiculous: the website team have simply scoured the Internet for sites like this, copied the text and uploaded them to give the impression they were provided by the employer directly. This is creating the wrong impression about the actual number of vacancies currently on offer (if the government are counting jobs advertised by the DWP as their source for example). There's no guarantee it's even a real job anyway as so many of these silly agency jobs aren't. I don't want to work for an agency and I don't want to work as a 'customer service administrator' (which is about all the advert tells me). But what choice do I have. I sent an email to find out about the job at least.
So there we are; no support, no interest and as usual no help. Just another routine scanning of the local list of adverts on the system and that's it. How anyone can think this approach is worthwhile is beyond me. No discussion of anything at all. I mentioned that I wasn't terribly comfortable with the third vacancy when it popped up (and the advisor 'nudging' my interest of course, so you feel compelled to apply). All i got was 'well admin is on your list of jobs' (i have no experience of admin at all, nor any desire to do it, but you have to pick three different types of work and are then held to that no matter what).
Ridiculous; we are all individual. This isn't an exception nor a pithy Monty P quote. We ARE such and as such our needs in work are equally individual. Just beccause other potential colleagues in the workplace might be able to manage, doesn't mean I can - or you can. I would have been more interested in discussing working from home (which we briefly touched upon last session), but the only game in town is 'let's look on the computer'. That's it; it's a ridiculous approach, utterly reactive, utterly inept, and no hope at all. I have skills, I have interests, dare I say I even have talents, now why are they being ignored?

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!

Addendum

Just rang the jobcentre about tomorrow. I thought that was the best thing to do. No point messing them around, despite being booked an appointment at a time I can't attend. Can't take the chance of turning up late and being left high and dry as regards money. They've booked me a normal signing for 9-50am wherein I will book a fresh appointment with the 'special adviser'.

That's assuming I don't get dicked around tomorrow morning instead. Maybe it's my anxiety based paranoia talking but I can't help wondering if they will.

Everytime I sign on, and this is the crux of what makes the experience so exquisitely awful, is the knowledge that yet again you must prove your worth. It's like a neverending round of the X Factor - you thought you were safe last week Mr Plums, but no, you've got to bring it this week as well - and this week it's Temp Agency Week!

All the effort you made before, no matter how many jobsearch activities or applications (mainly the former tbh) you did when last you signed don't count. Your effort has reset and you must wow the judges afresh. Not only that, but by this point your pittance has reached bingo fuel and you NEED that money. So all it takes is for the adviser to look over the jobsearch record a moment too long, ask one too many questions about what 'this' activity is or who 'that' person you spoke to is, and it's stress factor 10 again! One little thing you forgot to do and all the rest of it will count for nothing and BOOM no money for you.

(Now this doesn't sound right to me, but that seems to be how they operate. I don't know if legally they are allowed to do that - but, as they say in the ghostbusting business, who are you going to call?)

Remember: don't have nightmares.

The Crack in the Window

Do you wear glasses? I do.
If you do, do you ever get those moments when you have something on the lens, a smear or a scratch or a speck, but it's so close you can't see it yet it obscures your vision. You can feel your eye trying to work around it. That's living in our society.
We know things aren't right.
Our sensibilities cannot correctly perceive the crack in the window, but we know it's there. We know it's there because, but for the ruling elite, consensus would agree its existence and a new pane of glass would be fitted. Fixing those cracks is not in the interests of the government. They are as alien to our experience as that crack is to that window.
Last night i heard Digby Jones, champion of 'Britain PLC' (what a way to traduce a nation), defend tax dodging by taking the act of personal gratuity, tipping, and accusing those that partake in that act as consenting to the same act. I find that reprehensible. But then Jones has form after witnessing him, almost gangland style, verbally 'execute' two unemployed young blokes on Panorama simply for being out of work. In some remote urban location, dressed in an overcoat, I half expected Vinnie Jones to pop out from behind Digby's vast maggot monied girth to shoot the two before disposing the bodies in the canal.
Tomorrow I have to attend a JC+ appointment on what is otherwise my normal signing day with a special adviser having been unemployed for a few months now. The appointment was booked behind my back on a system that has the flexibility of a brick. No consideration of the fact I cannot actually get there until 30 mins later without spending 3 hours sitting on a park bench in a very very empty town. At least if there was a cinema i'd have something to do. There is nothing. Of course they will tell me that I could have spent that time 'jobsearching' - how? They won't say; it's a convenient catch all phrase they use to shift blame.
I could turn up late and possibly get sanctioned, leaving me with £60 to live on...forever. Of course I could turn up and everything could be fine. Or they could kick up a fuss and hit my stress buttons. These days, dealing with the jobcentre (which is why i was on ESA before, dealing with these useless fuckers) is an exercise in anxiety.
I can't deal with their bullshit. My cup is full. I've had their crap before. I signed on a few years back and had problems with the same people who'd promised they could help fund a passport (for identification purposes in our post-911 everyone's a terrorist world). I even had the job centre manager called over one time because it was taking a while to get the form signed properly (it has to be signed by someone qualified, and that someone's wife had just walked out on him). She then proceeded to stand there and berate me, in the open plan environment, for signing on.
"This is a legal document!" She raved "Signing this is an act of fraud because there are loads of jobs, i could get you labouring work without the need for a CSCS card so you are signing that document fraudulently!"
I shit thee not. I had to listen to her accuse me of fraud while doing nothing to back up her bullshit. No jobs were offered at all. I have never committed benefit fraud (or any other kind) in my life. But these people don't care.
In the end they didn't bother to fund a passport. I was told they'd only refund me and that I'd have to fork out the £80 myself. Of course I didn't have it so they didn't bother - as if I would trust them anyway.

The Noose Tightens...

Week 12, now the fun begins.
After waiting the extra 15 mins (for no reason it seems) having had my sign time needlessly changed I go through the motions once again. A list of jobs is paraded before me most of which are unsuitable for reasons of experience (or the lack thereof), transport and location. These factors seem to be something the JC just cannot process. Of course I'm just seen as refusing work, but if I don't have knowledge of the building trade or the only means of public transport doesn't get me there on time. What can I do when it's pointed out that I can get in at 9am (as is evident that I can by virtue of my presence at the jobcentre right now) therefore it must follow that I can get in any time.
Then my next time is booked. Again this seems to require some change in the process. Out comes the green appointment card, indicative of the seriousness of this next appointment. I'm booked on the 10th (hoo-fucking-ray) at the incongruous and inexplicable time of 2.20pm even though my signing time is 9-15am. Why? Who knows, even asking seems to indicate an unacceptable level of curiosity. Apparently the advisor that awaits my pleasure is only available at that time. The wheels move slowly as I try to explain that I might not be able to get in at that time. I can't say for sure as I don't have the timetable to hand and neither does the jobcentre who subtly point out that others come from where I live so, again, what's the problem. I have no idea who else local to me travels to the JC in question, but it's quite likely they have alternative methods of transport.
Then the fun begins: the advisor then offers me a time next Wednesday and my stress/anxiety kicks in. I find myself shrinking inside my own mind watching as anxiety autopilot takes over. I flat refuse that appointment, quite politely and calmly, but I just refuse refuse refuse. It's now quite clear to the advisor that something ain't right with this boy. She seems genuinely concerned, but the system is the system and not much can be done anymore than I can just switch off my anxiety (that's why it's anxiety) and do whatever whenever it's required. She inputs some data onto the system for the advisor and the original appointment is left as is, even though I've no idea how I'm going to get in if the buses aren't running, but rules is rules.
Why is there no discussion of what might constitute a suitable appointment? They get snippy when you say that travelling in on a limited bus service is difficult; as if you are inconveniencing them. It's ridiculous: they don't consider keeping the regular appointment that I clearly can manage but insist on seeing someone that's only available at a certain time. Then, when you have a problem with that (and you aren't given any advance warning or asked what time would be suitable), the system falters like a broken train. Ridiculous. Again.

Appointment with Fear!

So after being inexplicably referred for what is termed an 'intervention' (though I gather all signing appointments anyway are considered such) and waiting extremely nervously for two weeks I get to attend said 'intervention', in place of my normal signing time. This all started because last time the, rather petulant, adviser decided that, because the jobs he called up on his screen were beyond my experience, I needed this intervention. Although it seemed beyond his ability to explain this rather than resort to passive aggressive behaviour, after ignoring tht I'd presented him with a jobsearch in full compliance with my JSAg.

The JCP do not work well when you 'buck' (as they would doubtless see it) their way of doing things. Conversely if you accede to those processes you can, like wu wei, do well - or at least better. Anywho the appointment was relatively painless, mainly for that reason. As a happy coincidence my next signing time coincides with the royal arranged marriage and so I have been 'excused'. Unfortunately I had (or so it felt - dealing with the DWP is like a constant bartering for your very soul) to agree to see their Disability Adviser, though not the same person (and certainly not as bad I hope). So now I have the stress of awaiting a phone call to book me in for yet another visit to the bloody jobcentre. I shall tell her I don't intend to come in before the 13th (my next signing date) and only when I sign.

I'm going to enjoy the next couple of bank holiday weekends and the time inbetween as a holiday and damn the consequences. I doubt she will like that - it goes back to what I said above. They won't understand why I would, in their eyes, be unwilling to receive their benison of help. Too bad, the weather's getting nice, it's Easter (and although not christian I find Easter a pleasingly introspective time), and at least baldie's wedding is another excuse to de-stress. A blessed month away from the bloody DWP is to be welcomed as a fortuitous gift and not squandered on more pointless attendance.

So the appointment didn't really cover much. The problem with the JCP is their inflexibility and their inability to see individual circumstances for what they are. Everyone's different, but they simply see a list of vacancies and assume that a) there are lots of jobs going and b) why aren't i applying for all of them. Well because not every vacancy is suitable - particularly if the employer sets standards I can't meet, such as a level of experience or knowledge (such as software I don't own, have never used and couldn't afford). Last time I asked about training (for the now-pointless ECDL) I was warned that attending would disqualify my claim for JSA. I agreed to apply for a job through an agency, which I don't want. A 6 week office job through an agency I know are a waste of time - like most of these agency jobs. 6 weeks of work I'm not interested in just to appease Gideon Osbourne, 6 weeks of experience for a career I don't want, probably followed by hassle restarting my claim. Not once is there a discussion of help to get a career I might want to do. Instead it's about making your CV look good, or getting 'experience'.

This system is just designed to fail.

Daytime TV

Hands up who hates Jeremy Kyle!

A sea of hands appears from the masses.

Yes this man, as we all know, and has been discussed ad infitum, is a seething mass of contradiction and bile. A truly appalling hate monkey.

What interests me is the hypocrisy of it all. His show is deeply cynical as it's marketed toward those that he, on an individual basis, uses as targets for his particularly loathsome brand of friendly fire.

What separates the audience (at home and in the studio) from the 'guest' (a hell of a euphemism)? Aren't they the same people? Who stands up in the audience to add to the chorus of studio disapproval if not the same people that appear to receive Mr Kyle's (and his Punch and Judy therapist colleague) help?

It seems to me that the audience of this show are being conditioned to sublimate their own self loathing at a specific target, so as to feel better about their own lives. After all these people have time to watch daytime TV! Here's Dave who regularly cheats on his bedraggled 17yo girlfriend (specifically, the mother of his child), isn't he worse than you. So now you, the unemployed scum watching this rancid soap opera, have an enemy, and as Bill Hicks once said, everyone has to have an enemy. The unemployed are taught to hate each other and ultimately themselves. The Kyle circus allows that to happen with approval and safety by sharing his opinion we can feel validated that we are on the correct side of the moral fence. But it offers no help to the problem of unemployment, social division and the massive issue of wealth distribution this country endures. Nor does it ultimately offer any help to Dave who, having been wound up by Kyle and his audience, will feel more inclined to take his frustration out on his girlfriend again.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
There is a massively pernicious issue with unemployment: society portrays them as feckless and lazy. All too ready and eager to wake up when it's double figures o'clock and crack open a can of lager in time for the afternoon repeat of Kyle's awful show. Then the government and it's Worklessness (it's not even a word ffs!) Tsars (the quasi religious that believe all work is good for the soul, if only people could be disciplined to accept crap wages, long hours and unfulfilling conditions), are justified in condemning their lifestyle. But since the unemployed receive a pittance in handouts to live on what else are they meant to do: catch a taxi to the West End to soak up an opera or a visit to a museum?

Why don't we invest in utilising the skills of the unemployed and not worry about paying them handouts. Why not let them express their skills, such as art or music or (in my case) writing, while unemployed? In fact, introduce a Citizen's Wage and then let people contribute their creative works to, perhaps, a central database that people can access or purchase from to pay for itself. Thereby the artists contribute to the culture of our society (which we can export via the interweb).

So many possibilities, yet this stupid capitalist government wants to do nothing else but kick the ladder from beneath them, having reached the top.

Jobsearch - Read It!

My second signing appointment today, and my first 'difficult' adviser. I say difficult, there was a hint of an attitude. I'm presenting my jobsearch which he decides to pore over in exquisite detail before signing off as (presumably) acceptable. Next an examination of ALL the jobsearch websites I use (which are listed on the jobsearch I've provided). He whips out his Jobcentre Approved List of Jobsearch Websites and asks me to point to EVERY jobsite on that list I've used. I remind him that it's written on the jobsearch UI've provided that he then decides he couldn't read. Well my handwriting is a little flowery, but I'm not offended if you can't read it; just ask me to clarify anything that's unclear. Nope, I get a politely veiled dig at my writing in that 'i'm nervously but arrogantly chuckling as I say this so it's polite' kind of way.
What's the point of going through my jobsearch if you aren't going to pay any attention to it and then proceed to judge me on what I haven't done, even though what I have done is enough by your own rules?
Then begins a rather tedious search on their system for a job. I wonder if that counts toward my jobsearch as I have to go through it every time I sign on.
The process is pathetic: he calls up an arbitrary list of vacancies without any parameter other than one type of job from the triumvirate of tediousness I have to choose as part of my jobseekers agreement. Among these are included jobs in places that are difficult to get to (a point he ignores because it's no problem at all to rely on a confluence of multiple bus journeys in order to get to work on time during rush hour on a busy arterial route). More importantly all the jobs (except one which was so vaguely advertised we both ignored it) required experience.
Then we get to the meat of it.
I can see him start to question my three job 'areas' - my triumvirate of tediousness. This is ridiculous. I have to pick three job types as part of their rules in order to sign on. They also have to be from their approved list of categories (so Footballer, Astronaut, and Writer - which is what I'm aspiring to - are out of the question). Then when you sign on their arbitrary computer search, which is limited at best, forces them to start questioning those choices. So the end result: you are forced to pick three (no more no less, that's the magic number) and then you are criticised because of labour market conditions viewed through the tiny keyhole that is their jopbsearch. No discussion of training, skills, education, opportunity. Nothing; just an increasing level of bureaucratic frustration at the incongruity of 'you picked this as a category, but all these jobs require ex[perience you don't have - DOES NOT COMPUTE'.
This system is a complete farce. You are made to feel as if all this is your fault; labour market conditions, demands of employers, limited choice of job categories, and the DWP system's total inflexibility in helping people.
How does any of this help anyone find work?

Responsibility

(From this article on the Guardian website; these are my responses which I also posted on their comments page)
Responsibility. How I hate that word. It's as worthless as the word hero. It's bandied about all the time and used as a way to dismiss opinion and avoid discussion. People are expected to take responsibility for their lives, we are told in some sub-seklf help claptrap fashion. How can people not take responsibility for their lives - they are living them!
What they mean is that people should shut up and get any old job that pays money to George Osbourne so our 'responsible' government of crooks and liars can continue to exploit us.
We need to do away with the loaded language of our times, speak plainly and start building a better future away from this kind of exploitation.
I'm out of work, so therefore I'm irresponsible - especially so if I refuse to take any old job advertised in the jobcentre, no matter how unsuitable, or how miserable it makes me. What price a life? Doesn't matter, I have to be 'responsbile' while means 'paying your way' - another trite catchprhase of the age.
Fuck this. Offer me something meaningful and rewarding to do that betters society and my community, where Im making a real difference for my fellow progressively minded compassionate human beings. Pay me a decent wage for it so that I can pay a good rate of tax and have money left over to put into the economy through the private sector.
That's responsibility. But it seems responsibility is a one way street - it's not the job of the jobcentre/government to help me achieve that goal, that would be a happy by product of looking for work. Hence the expression 'the world doesn't owe you a living'. Well if that's true I don't owe the world anything back.
People on the dole stand on their own two feet in eactly the same way as people earning a wage. the only difference is the source of that income. In fact it could be argued that, by virtue of the pittance the dole pays (and pays under extreme suffrance), the unemployed are standing much more firmly. They have to pay the buills and buy food and clothing etc exactly the same as someone who is waged, but because that money comes from the state (the money comes from sources such as VAT and indirect income taxation paid via the benefit claimant when they spend their money or even when they bank it) somehow the unempliyed are irresponsible. Nonsense. Utter nonsense.
Time to get rid of these outdated puritan values and excise the last vestiges of religious thinking from our morality. The state pays me beneift, I spend that benefit in exactly the same way to meet my needs as the employed, and it goes back into the system. So the real crime, in the western world, is that I'm not wealth generating. So bloody what? I'm a human being, not a banker.
People don't live on their own two feet since the industrialised capitalist machine took over. Division of labour means that everyone, except the most exceptional, skilled or fortunate, are unable to live completely self sufficiently. Even then they would still need to find their own medicine and energy needs. How many working people make their own clothes, medicines, food and supply their own energy to meet the demands of the modern world?

Signing On

Today was the first time I signed on properly (i have claimed prior).

Got to the reception where I had to hand over my signing booklet to someone that proceeded to give it to one of the signing on advisers. That seemed to be his entire role in the building; concierge to the unemployed. His duties also included telling people to use the job points while they are made to wait.
As part of my agreement i look on the JC website every day, there's nothing their job points can provide, they use the same source. They also don't work properly. Touch screens that are unresponsive coupled with a useless database and location search make them a complete chore. This is coupled with the already crap information jobcentre adverts provide.
When I sit down to sign the adviser doesn't consult my jobsearch or look at my CV, both of which I was told to bring. What's the point then? If i have to engage in these redundant activities, at least check. However I really obkect to havng to show my CV; seriously, it's a private document that only those to whom I give consent are allowed to look. There's fuck all on it, so what's the point. All it does is say i've been claiming ESA due to my inability to cope with the world. WIN!
The Jobseekers Agreement seems solely designed to foist pointless activities on the claimant under the assumption that, because the unemployed are lazy scroungers, they should be held to higher standards than anyone else. Seriously this is ridciuous: people assume that because you don't havge a job the alternative to you obviously spending your days glued to daytime tv you should ring every business, write to every business and comb the yellow pages thoroughly each day every day. Anything else is assumed to be not enough effort. This is absurd; who in paid employment operates that way.
It's a ridiculous standard and not only is it unrealistic is entirely impractical: employers don't want to be bombarded with calls and letters from the same people just because, each time they sign, the adviser tells them to do it. No wonder there's so much competition for each job. Is there not a better way of doing things?
Take a job in Tescos for instance; take two applicants one of whom wants the job muych more than the other (fuck knows why, but that's their decision). Why does the jovcentre exist on the assumption that both should be compelled to apply? Why not give the one vacancy to the one persont that wants it, then help the other do what he guenuinely wants to do likeiwse?
Because it costs money.
Anyway I signed on. In the process I checked with the adviser to make sure they had the right bank details (they did) and discoverd that the first 3 days of your claim are known as Waiting Days. More importantly you can't claim money for these days. No reason why. When i got home I rang the JSA people and found that doesn't apply to me (in spite of what the adviser said, typical) because this is a rapid reclaim from ESA which had already been subkect to waiting days. Some bollocks like that.
Another ridiculous policy from our lords and masters. All stick, no carrot.

The Work Ethic

What a load of bullshit.

We are put on this earth (by shapeshifting lizards, obviously) for our allotted time, during which no one else is going to live our lives for us. So if I have to participate in the great capitalist charade, under the thumb of hypocrits, then at least give me the choice to do something intrinsically good and meaningful with my time.

Call centres don't count.

What is this bollocks about a work ethic - especially when perpetuated by the robber barons that are the greatest spongers in our society. To have moneyed politicians, members of a shady and privileged aristocracy and corporate fraudsters tell me I have to be a good citizen and 'do my bit', or, 'pay my way', or, 'work hard' I think they can fuck off. Especially when they pay themselves nice fat bonuses for running failed banks!

Nothing changes in Britain; the Sheriff of Nottingham never left office.

These people would like to tell you that work is good for the soul; the panacea to all your problems. It's the same argument that compels Tommy to sit in a foxhole in Afghanistan fighting the wars of failed presidents and prime ministers. Where is the glory in this? Do they zealots shooting at them care about their 'hard work', do the Afghani's trying to live their lives inbetween care?

Does the poor fella here trying to find a job think that the rich boys in Westminster or the Square Mile, care that he does find a job (beyond that tax they can take from the pittance he'll get paid?

He'd love any job, apparently. I don't doubt that's true and I'm sure he would take or do anything. But why are people put into a situation where they are so financially desperate or so culturally deprived that they are willing to accept anything - even when the likelihood of them earning a wage that can support them (without recourse to further benefits) is minimal. I'm sure deep down, like everyone, he as aspirations (we live in a society that programs people to want, after all), talents, hopes, goals, dreams, aptitudes and skills. Yet these are never tapped. Why? £££.

Why are we not investing in these people in this way, in people's lives? Why only focus on getting them into any job no matter the cost? Why is that so important? I say it's counter productive. It's easy to say 'go apply to Tescos or lose your JSA' but how does that help society? All it does is inflate Tescos which leads to the rise of big business (at the expense of small business, and therefore of community) creating a cycle - business expands, more jobs. Do we want a nation of shelf stackers? Do we want a nation of people educated only to that level? What's next, St. Tesco's Comprehensive School? A place where peopel are not educated in culture, science, art as well as the fundamentals (price tagging, removing unwanted items from bagging areas), but taught only enough to get these mcJobs!

This is counter productive to society in the long term, and the long term is all that matters. Britain is a wealthy place, don't be fooled by all this deficit nonsense. This debt serves political interests, particularly tory workhouse ideology. If the will was behind the sentiment it would be paid off overnight with at least a proper tightening of the tax rules.

Instead we make people feel the only way they can participate and be welcomed into society is if they are willing to do anything for anything for as little as employers are willing to pay. After all, as Chris Rock says, the minimum wage is the emoployer's way of saying "if I could, I'd pay you less". Unless you are prepared to slog your guts out 24/7 then you aren't working hard enough, and if you are you need to look at your neighbour and say "why aren't you doing more?" Divide and rule, boys and girls; want what your don't have and judge those that have what you want and find them wanting. That's why we have a benefit fraud 'hotline' but not a tax fraud hotline.

I believe we should treat people as individuals and help them into whatever career they want, especially if that career is genuinely helpful and productive and, if possible, elevates society. Why aren't we moving forward? Instead we are stagnating; this is what gives rise to the bitterness in society where people on the NMW look down their nose at people on JSA, which is a wholly ridiculous position.

I believe there is work that can be done that's productive and meaningful; it must be very rewarding to help people for a living, for example. But we can't even get that right, and if someone signed on saying they'd like to train as a social worker or a counsellor for young out of work people, they'd get sent to their local Tescos at best.