Today at the JC

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

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

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

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

The Insanity of the Jobcentre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Small Victories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Me After School!

I wish I could take credit for this, but sadly no. It is a glorious deconstruction of Herr Ratface Grayling's letter to Polly Toynbee.

Hypocrit much, Chris?

Fare, What's Fair?

The Workfare leviathan rumbles on, like a riderless horse. The public (that's us, the group the Tories hate the most) are shining light into this murky world, and it's about time. Next Saturday there are to be demonstrations against this iniquitous and scandalous scheme. No doubt the likes of ratface Grayling will label those participating as job snobs or SWP troublemakers and the like as he has done all week. His appearance in the introduction to a piece by Newsnight (21/2, right at the start) is telling. Watch his body language: his eyes give it all away as they look away when he finishes speaking. Even he knows full well this is all just about corporate power.

My advice to those participating (and, though I hope to god otherwise, that may well be me) is to become the least employable candidate. I don't mean cause trouble or make the workplace you are sentenced to attend dangerous, that would be stupid. But let your self worth dictate your course of action: you are being used, stand up and be counted. If they want you to work, then they should earn that right, not get it given to them by a coalition of crooks. Meanwhile, pleasingly, many big high street names are withdrawing publicly from this scheme. I say publicly, beause who knows what goes on behind the scenes.

We are fighting a thankless war here: the public, we are routeinly told by the likes of the ridiculous Policy Exchange (who use that as an excuse to advocate further tightening the thumbsrews), are not on our side. Yet those that find themselves unemployed, as evidenced by the 5Live debate, quickly discovered how pitiful their benefits income was. Meanwhile the media propaganda continues: Question Time last week featured a dismal turnout from a panel almost wholly in favour of workfare. One lone labour speaker's disapproval was met with thunderous silence from the Tunbridge Wells audience. Much the same could be said for it's sister show, Any Questions, the following day, with the exceptioon of Kenan Malik who fought desperately against not only the same kind of apathy, but a disturbing impersonation of tory policy from Sarah Tether.

What I have noticed throughout these venomously biased debates is how the undercurrent of demonisation is unchallenged. Every single person advocating this nonsense quite happily criticises the young (not that this scheme is limited to the 18-24 demographic, far from it) in the most appalling terms. Their anecdotes are replete with accusations and assumptions: they are unable to keep time, they are lazy, they sit around playing xbox all day, they can't write, they can't read, they don't want to work, blah blah blah. Such comments are always made by people that claim they are businessmen, so of course we don't dare criticise them. But when someone talks about an experience with a 'youth' who stopped turning up after their dog died, we are compelled to believe that the problem lies with the youth in question, and not at all with the businessman or his working practises/environment.

Of course there's every chance that those whining that they are sent people who are useless are the problem themselves. There's also the fact that the jobcentre will compel everyone and anyone to apply for a given job, so the businessman will have to interview people that aren't suitable amongst those that are, contributing to a skewed perception of the labour market. That of course is unfair on those people concerned - and indeed the employers - it's a waste of everyone's time, but if we don't do as we are told, we lose our benefits.

Then there's the issue of workplace health and safety, which, despite the best efforts of tossers like Richard Littlecock, is an important issue. The Tories see such trifles as mere employer safety as an inconvenience, a cost the self made man is burdened with: another of the state's shackles. But what rights do workfare slaves have with respect to workplace regulations and thus insurance - are they insured? Who covers this? Is it further expense passed onto the public purse that the big corporations can avoid? That can't be right; workfare will end up costing way more than just paying someone their benefit and letting them get on with it. But that can't be allowed to happen, in the Tory worldview. It's bad for the soul. Or some such bollocks.

As for me. Well the battle between GP and Work Psychologist goes on. It's a case of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. They are both, in their own way, happy to say they are supportive and that they want to help, but when it comes to actually providing help and support they shy away. I'm still waiting for the full report from The Psychologist, but even that won't do much because she has made it quite clear it's purpose isn't to highlight genuine issues that must be dealt with, supported, and at least respected by an employer (which in the current climate, an employer's market, won't happen). Likewise the GP is all for seeing Work Psychologists and attending Work Programmes or Work Choices but doesn't take anything I say seriously or even really listen. He'll happily slag ioff the local CMHT (and he may be right to do so for all I know), but then when I explain how CBT hasn't really helped (it requires you develop a level of awareness to step outside of your thoughts when you experience difficulty I haven't mastered) I'm told I'm not making any effort. The bottom line seems to be:
"Yes we're here to help; we want to help."
"OK, so what help will i get for non verbal learning disorder/ADD/Dyspraxia/Aspergers and/or just plain anxiety/depression?"
"Oh if you can't be bothered to help yourself and work then we can't help you."
"Right, but how?"
"You're just lazy."
It's a no win situation.

Workfare Again

I say again, I've probably spoken about this, one way or another, more times than I can actually remember on this blog. I find this issue just extraordinary: I simply cannot understand how anyone can genuinely think it's a positive for society. It totally blows my mind. Obviously the Tories do; over the weekend DWP unterfuhrer Grayling tried to qualify the rules, but succeeded only in contradicting himself. (That link comes from here.) He said that people won't get sanctioned unless they walk out of these schemes, having agreed to partake (though the voluntary aspect is still unclear), at the eleventh hour. He quickly followed up by saying there are also limited sanctions for those that don't partake at all, or who quickly back out within the cooling off period said to exist. It's deeply confusing. But then so is the Coalition (isn't that the sort of name dystopian SF writers use for their far future machine tyrannies?)

All this comes from the revelation of a job, advertised by the DWP on behalf of Tesco, for a nightshift worker. It's exploded - quite rightly - in the media, right in Tesco's and the government's face. It is an appalling example of the state of our capitalist economy: millions out of work and the best that Thatcher's children can do is offer a multi-billion (that's billion, not million) pound organisation, the largest private sector employer in the country, free labour. Well, not quite free, the taxpayer is paying their wages - as well as their expenses, and covering the costs of health insurance as well as paying the pimps that place unemployed claimants who have no say in this (let's not be coy, Mr Grayling), including the Jobcentre. Who said recession was bad for business?

Now, I might have some (very limited) sympathy if the position advertised was more clearly an experiential position, or if the claimant had some say in where he went. But that is evidently not the case. This is pure and simple about getting cheap (ie free) labour in to do a pretty low end job. If the position wasn't listed as permanent, and saw the claimant visiting with every department within a supermarket, so that he gets to experience not just the shop floor, not just the stockroom, but the head office and the manager's desk, then maybe -

Well no, scratch that, I would of course have zero sympathy. A 30 hour job at the NMW is at least £180 a week (which itself is a crap wage, and the Tories would rather the NMW was removed as a supposed barrier to employment) - not £67! Once you open this door, it's a Pandora's box that can never be closed. This is a slippery, slippery, slope and we must not allow it to lead us to where it will inevitably go. If we are going to pursue a policy of not paying people a wage, in our continued race to the bottom under this Tory-led nightmare, then what hope do we and future generations have.

This is forced labour - slavery, plain and simple. There is no positive out come here. To call it work experience is misleading - the claimant is working. The idea that, because it's all about getting valuable experience (of a single, low skilled, task), shouldn't exclude paying a wage. The two aren't incompatible: the worker will still get that experience as well as the perhaps even more valuable experience of earning a wage, which is what all this is about. Obviously not, as far as Tesco and the government (that means the liberal democracts have just as much muck on their hands from this as their Tory masters) are concerned. It is deeply iniquitous to keep someone shackled by the welfare system - with all the negativity that brings, all the social opprobrium and self harm - while at the same time having them work for you. Whatever people think, this night shift worker is in a job. The idea that they need to do this to get valuable experience etc is completely countered by that fact: they are working. The only problem is that their boss, big fat Mr Tesco, can't be bothered to put his hand in his pocket and pay him. He can't be bothered to present the slave with a proper contract of employment (giving him proper rights and protection that we, otherwise, have to provide). After all what happens if the worker is injured on the job? Well obviously he gets handed over to our increasingly privatised NHS (or what's left of it) and another slave is shipped in from the urban colonies. This is wrong on so many levels I fear I might fall down if I think about it too deeply.

And yet there are plenty of people that cannot see this. We have a depressed labour market and dreadful economic conditions and so these schemes, they enthuse, are even more vital. Work is so important to people that we must keep them working, even if we can't (ie won't) pay them. Again the message from our 'betters' is that work is good for the soul and that without it one will malinger and fall into indolence. It's the neo victorian, puritan work ethic, born of a christian/religious mindset. I find this depressing, I find this limiting and I find it offensive. But lest we forget, this is nothing new: jolly James Purnell back in Labour's day was all for schemes like this. Labour were tough on claimants throughout their time. In fact it's another example of the Tories' dishonesty that they secretly take credit for the current harshness of the system, when in fact most of it they inherited. At the same time they happily blame Labour for the supposed 'something for nothing' culture (irony overload!).

Lastly, have a look at this. These are the guidelines for those providing the Community Action Programme. This will be a 6 month sentence (30 hours a week, again, of workfare for those that 'fail' the Work Programme. So, survive that (which also includes the chance of workfare) and you get to go through this scheme; all designed to help you back to work. The government claim it's intended for claimants to give something back to society, to help in their community (and take work away from actual tradesmen and artisans, of course, who cannot possibly compete with free labour). Sounds like Community Service doesn't it! Those guidelines include some very sinister elements: such as:

Mandation is there to use as a tool to ensure that claimants do what is required of them.
Whilst on CAP, the participant is required to attend the Jobcentre for Fortnightly Job Search Reviews and to confirm that they are continuing to meet JSA conditionality (actively seeking and available for work). (somehow fitting in an inflexible signing time with work time will be fun - and the responsibility of the claimant, not the JC/provider.)
A2.4 Examples of organisation types that deliver direct/indirect benefit to the community (does that include the claimant?) for the purposes of this section include;
•Local Authorities and Councils
•Government Departments and Agencies
•Charities and third sector organisations
•Social Enterprises
•Environmental Agencies
In addition to providing the 30 hours per week participation on a work placement you should maintain at least a minimum of weekly contact with each participant and have the flexibility to deliver up to 10 hours of additional provider-led jobsearch support each week. (That's on top of the placement, and finding the time to actually sign on.)
A participant who is absent from their placement (e.g. short term sickness, domestic emergency etc), will still need to complete 30 hours work experience in that week to enable you to count this period as one of the completed weeks.

I note that, while travel expenses are meant to be covered, there is no mention of covering the cost of food. So if you can't afford to prepare a decent meal to take with you everyday (which, given the amount people have to live on on JSA isn't unlikely at all, when it comes to taking meals with you to work). Childcare expenses are also mentioned, but they can only be paid to a licensed carer - and that means friends and family, if you want them to get subsidised, must be so licensed.

Unfortunately for us, the Tories don't. I wonder how many positions within Tory or Libdem Head Office or the Houses of Parliament exist for 'work experience'? Funny how it's only ever limited to shelf stacking or sorting clothes in a charity shop (and the third sector's involvement is a discussion in itself!). Meanwhile Boycott Workfare! As you were.

The Myth of the Just World

Following from Thursday's surprise call from the jobcentre I had my signing yesterday along with meeting The Psychologist for the outcome of the test. It's all somewhat confusing. Though signing went smoothly I'm still not really sure where I stand with respect to this test. She seemed to indicate that I have something called Non Verbal Learning Disability which, I'm told, is a newly discovered neuro-diverse condition (if indeed that's the appropriate word) and that I may also have ADD. It all seems to be about tendencies: getting a concrete yes or no seems impossible and, I get the feeling, inappropriate. Unfortunately the system requires that degree of certainty (as do I, quite frankly).

A preliminary questionnaire answered from the first appointment prior to the test itself led her to conclude that I suffered from anxiety (duh) and depression. Now I can't attest to whether I feel the latter (I'd say more frustration than depression, but I can't really be objective). She was surprised and concerned I wasn't getting treatment for this. I explained that the CMHT aren't interested and that my GP isn't much better. He thinks the CMHT are useless and has said that they wouldn't see me for a routine diagnosis of such a condition (I had asked). This is compounded by his belief that 'getting a job' would cure my addled mind - and therein lies the problem.

I'm still not really any closer to any kind of solution, or even a diagnosis. She went through the test results, but I didn't walk away with some kind of certificate - ie a concrete diagnosis of something I can take to my GP (or indeed anyone) to work with. I have a letter from her with the promise that the results will be made available to him, though I suspect that an actual result - a diagnosis - won't be forthcoming, and she made it clear, after the test, she wasn't qualified to diagnose Aspergers. What does any of this mean: I am told I have (possibly) x or y condition, but then on the other hand that it means nothing, in terms of getting support or help (because at the very least getting a job is the be all and end all).

This is difficult for me to articulate, but it seems that they - the experts - are happy for you to have tests, even be diagnosed, etc, but only insofar as that it doesn't mean you actually have any kind of problem. Society doesn't like weakness and has grown intolerant of weakness: problems, physical emotional or mental, are there simply to be overcome. It's just easier to tell someone that getting a job would solve their problems. My GP tells me that 'if you could find the right job (so to speak) it would be better for you'; consequently writing sick/fit notes is seen as anathema - it makes things worse. They simply believe you will otherwise whither and die presumably in front of Daytime TV on cannabis. I find that insulting.

This realisation exposes the truth of the right wing agenda as it's based on the just world fallacy - if only you could find the right job everything would be great and all your problems would be healed. There's an almost Christian ring to it, but that should come as no surprise of course: much of our current thinking is based on Christian social ideology - work now reward later. Of course that's a means of control, which is why the likes of Eric Pickles support it.

The truth is that I can't ignore the problems I have - that's why they are problems. Certainly I can try to overcome them, receive help to do so. However in that I am only human; all the self help superstar guru rhetoric doesn't make it any easier and doesn't guarantee success in an increasingly hostile social environment in trying to overcome problems. So when I'm given the choice between Work Programme and Work Choices (if indeed there's a difference between them), I have to wonder what the point of it all is. The goal in both cases is the same: pay a social enterprise firm to get me into work. I'm also told that, despite the recommendation of Work Choices, on the basis they exist to help people with problems (to put it simplistically), they aren't specialists in dealing with, for instance, neuro diversity, depression or anxiety. So what's the point? But of course what choice do I have.

It's like being told that you need to learn to drive and then learning that you have a visual impairment that makes driving impossible and then being told you need to learn to drive to overcome it. The whole system, with it's bias toward the marketplace, is the problem. I commented to The Psychologist that my emotional state won't change anytime soon (she said 'in time it will') to make the point that the system is the problem. Another analogy would be comparing it to washing your hands in dirty water - how clean will they be?

I may edit this post as I process all these perspectives over time. On Monday I again see my GP and will of course present him with The Psychologist's report and tell him what she thinks. I doubt much would change; he's ideologically opposed to writing a sick note and I have no doubt he will defensively reinforce his errant belief in the just world fallacy. Unfortunately, what he refuses to accept is that we don't live in the 'but if you....' world, that's why it's a fallacy. Equally unfortunately he, like many others (especially the Coalition), doesn't accept the reality of his point of view.