It's going to be a controversial contract. It's meant to "encourage participants to gain a better understanding of the discipline and focus that is required for work and allow them to make a contribution to their community at the same time" (Indus Delta) and it's for those who haven't been co-operative with the system up to now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Who is actually going to do any work on the work programme? The supervisors will not be popular at all so would it be worth the hassle of taking such a job as a workfare supervisor?
ReplyDeleteA4E did get contracts, in my area, for the work programme. What worries me is the fact that jobs are scarce as it is, no employer is going to take on paid staff, as the job centre provide us for free, 30 hour weeks, roll us in and roll us out. Free labour its a f in joke
ReplyDeleteBut whos going to actually work on the work programme!? will the supervisors make people under the threat of benifit cuts!? is it worth it all the hassle that would come with that!?
ReplyDeleteJHP have won the Mandatory Work Activity contract in my area. When I spent 3 months with them as part of the Flexible New Deal I and several others never had to do the 4 week unpaid work placement because JHP couldn't find enough placements. Let me guess, they must have got the contract because they made the lowest bid because it certainly was not based on previous performance.
ReplyDeleteI might add I have no objection to doing a 4 week work placement in principle but I expect to get paid for it and not be free labour for some Scrooge employer.
And I every intention of compiling a 'name and shame' list of any employers in my area who participate in MWA - which I will put on YOuTube.
This is non sensical, well at least to me. Mandatory Work Activity is identical to the Work For Your Benefit scheme which was dropped a few months ago having not got off the ground. Due to lack od work placements by any chance ..... ?
ReplyDeletea4e failed to find me a placemnt on New Deal and probably countless other people, so have a poor record in this area, hence probably no contract. How did other companies fare on this I wonder?
Three years ago I was under Flexible New Deal. Midway through if you did not find a job you went onto IAP/Intensive Activity Period. Over a period of 13 weeks, you had to show them 30 hours per week job searching via timesheets.
Prior to this and throughout they looked for placements and indeed came up with possibilities for me in my field (design)
I actually think FND was better
Simone raises a good point about contracts and poor records.
ReplyDeleteWise Group, a Glasgoew charity, are considering legal action after their bids to run The Work Programme in both Scotland and Newcastle were both unsuccessful.
Based on performance, they outperformed every other provider in Scotland in getting jobseekers on FND into employment.
The rumour, and I stress it is just a rumour, is that the reason they failed to win any Work Programme contracts was because their bid was to high.
Here's a link to STV video of the Wise Group boss voicing his concern over the allocation of Work Programme contracts.
http://news.stv.tv/election-2011/242237-award-of-work-programme-contract-criticised/
A Rose By Any Other Name Choke!
ReplyDeleteWell looking att the regulations http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/eia-mandatory-work-activity.pdf I see these are dated December 2010. It looks to me as if flaws were found in The Work For Your Benefit scheme or got bad press and this is merely a revision.
You have to work up to 30 hours in the Work Plpacementt and continue to look for work, showing them the requisite Jobsearch Log ..... nasty
Who would want the job of workfare supervisor!!! you would need danger money a team of people who dont want to be there who dont want to work for nothing, and 30 hours a week IS NOT working for you jobseekers allowance what the hourly rate works out is far below even the pathetic minimum wage. the work programme cannot work for the above reason it will just be chaos no one will work on it, there will unfortunatley be attacks on power mad work programme supervisors, oh yes some will do the job you know the inadequate guy who lives near us all who people laugh at! give him the role of "work programme supervisor"! and hey look at me see i can tell you what to do yes ican ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh the power oh goddddddddddd. whack yer out!!
ReplyDeleteI've published the above comment despite its silliness, to show how going over the top with criticism is counter-productive.
ReplyDeleteThere's a great deal of feeling in this country, however unjustified, that too many people have no intention of working. Labour's "Work for your Benefit" was a response to that, and I don't recall any threat of revolution arising from that. People who object to MWA won't get any sympathy. If you've been on benefits for years, they will say, why shouldn't you do something useful for it? Let's be clear, I regard MWA as wrong for a number of reasons, not least because if there's work that needs doing people should be paid properly to do it. But the majority of the population don't agree, and you have to argue against it on sensible grounds.
Just An Immediate Idea
ReplyDeleteAnd as such to be thought through!
Here is a new scheme, optional/mandantory Train For Your Benefit running alongside (or not) MDA ..... ie you have to choose one or the other.
Maybe JSA/Universal Credit (which by the way I see from Goggle is to be paid monthly) could even possibly become a loan similar to students attending universities and colleges. I am not sure whether the claiment or the government should pay the course fees. I would think the latter.
"why shouldn't you do something useful for it" like working in your local library, taking the signings on at the job centre. What is most objectionable is the word "related", this makes the scheme sound more like a community-style service punishment. By all means give the unemployed work but make sure it is REAL work, any unemployed person would jump at the chance to work in their library or take the signing at the job centre. And as you say, if you've been on benefits for years,why shouldn't you do something useful for it. I can't see anyone objecting to that.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know what the "activities" on this scheme are going to be or as it is anticipated is it going to be working with convicted criminals doing their community service; in effect a 120 hour sentence of community service for the "crime" of being unemployed.
ReplyDeleteThe link to a DWP doc posted by Simone identifies the target group quite clearly. Of the expected 10,000 placements per annum, you are likely to be referred if:
ReplyDelete* A doubt was raised even if it did not result in a sanction.
* You are between 25 and 49 year old.
* If you have been identified as having a disability.
* Are from an ethnic minority.
* Of male gender.
The language used throughout the doc leaves little doubt that this MWA is a punitive action to encourage "clients" to cease claiming. Whilst I agree a small number of people do need a proverbial kick up the backside, real training and genuine assistance would be far more help. With just six providers in line to place 10,000 referrals that "make a contribution to their community", it has all the hallmarks of a PR stunt pandering to the voters.
Anon, one big fault with what you've written - you should have said, "you are slightly more likely to be referred". That's what the document shows, not that "you are likely to be referred". Does rather change the sense, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteI personally have no issues with Mandatory Work Activity and think that this is something that is vital in instilling a work discipline and ethic amongst long term unemployed and economically inactive individuals. It saddens and angers me to read comments where individuals think they should be paid at least minimum wage when on MWA. Why this makes me angry is that for a large proportion of claimants of JSA they are also in receipt of housing benefit and Council Tax benefit also. If you add these figures together, often they add up to a rather princely sum!
ReplyDeleteA cultural and attitudinal shift is long overdue within the long term unemployed sector and I wholly embrace the fundamental framework of MWA. After all there is no such thing as a free meal! Government and Society need to make a stance on this and remove the deeply entrenched notions (of some, not all long term benefit claimants) that they are ENTITLED by right to benefits!
I may be coming across as draconian in my opinions here. However, after 12 years working in the welfare to work industry and seeing the same old faces time and time again churning through the system makes me very angry and bitter that 12 years on the state are still supporting individuals who out and out REFUSE to engage in any form of employment related activity by keeping a roof over their heads and food in their bellies. How can this be right or even fair on those of us who have a deeply instilled discipline to work and pay our taxes etc? Is it fair that honest and hardworking people have to support those who persistently refuse to seek or hold down gainful employment!
Ive been unemployed before and suffered 3 redundancies within 5 years but I made damn sure that I used every bit of energy and pride that I had left in me to secure gainful employment. With two degrees including a masters, some would say I am one of the lucky ones and yes this is probably true. However after my redundancies whilst seeking gainful employment in my chosen industry I worked in some god awful jobs just so that I did not have to rely on the state to support me. I took a longer term view and remained focused on the my main goal and worked towards it.
The long term unemployed (the hard core persistent offenders) in my humble opinion need to be taken in hand, supported, directed and mentored towards sustainable employment. MWA is one key intervention here and if they dont like it then its only right that sanctions and consequences are handed out. Society needs to remove the scourge of persistent free loaders so that when we face the next recession the pressure on the public purse is minimised and tax revenues can be directed towards economic stability and growth rather than throwing more petrol on an already blazing furnace!
Thanks for a thoughtful post.
ReplyDeleteYou talk about "the deeply entrenched notions (of some, not all long term benefit claimants) that they are ENTITLED by right to benefits!" and I need to make two points:
i) If you've worked in the industry you know that it's a minority of the unemployed who are "persistent free loaders", as you put it. Just how big that minority is tends to be a subjective impression rather than quantifiable. But once you've used the label you also stamp it on huge numbers of people who really do want to work.
ii) The fact is that the long-term unemployed ARE entitled to benefits. You may have an ideological objection to that, but it remains true.
You are not clear about whether MWA is punitive or intended to help. Perhaps a bit of both? But your heated language in the last paragraph suggests it's the former. Personally (and I've also worked in the industry and also been unemployed) I would like far more effort directed at those who are unemployable because of drug or alcohol addiction.
"Why this makes me angry is that for a large proportion of claimants of JSA they are also in receipt of housing benefit and Council Tax benefit also. If you add these figures together, often they add up to a rather princely sum!" - eh?! Many WORKING people are also in receipt of Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit. And also typical Housing Benefit/Council Tax/JSA amount nowhere near to what someone takes home on National Minimum Wage. Why not give a Guarantee that those on MWA will have at least as much in their pocket as someone on Minimum Wage - what is your objection to that? I also notice that you are trotting out the usual "I've worked in some god-awful" jobs - are "God-awful jobs" all the "welfare-to-work" industry have to offer its victims/customers. Why no raise the bar a bit? Also, making statements like "I have word in God-awful jobs" is a very easy thing to do. I am not saying that you are lying, but, as I said, it is very easy to see. And maybe in your case you didn't see it as a dead-end; more of a "tourist", seeing what it's like down there, eh?
ReplyDeleteYour last point, Anon, is uncalled for. When anyone says, "I'm not saying you are lying," it means that you are saying just that. Many people have done some pretty awful jobs because that was all that was available.
ReplyDeleteHistorian,
ReplyDeleteSeems I have maybe ruffled a few feathers with my earlier comments on MWA and "God Awful Jobs". To clarify my thoughts maybe I should explain in greater detail.
There is a hardcore faction of long term unemployed who refuse to engage in any form of welfare to work support and do lead what could be viewed in some eyes as a freeloading lifestyle supported by state. You quite correctly state that the exact numbers who fall into this category is impossible to calculate accurately and therefore measurements in this respect are merely subjective. It is also a sad reality that these individuals who behave in this manner overshadow those who have genuinely fallen on hard times and really struggle to find gainful employment whilst also embracing the state funded help and support towards employment.
What I am trying to stress is that the Govt needs to be tough on the persistent offenders and weed them out so that efforts and financial support can be targeted to those who genuinely require additional help and support.
Ive seen so many time wasters over the last 12 years that churn through the system and it saddens me greatly when 12 years on, these same individuals, who are more than capable of working and have many great talents choose to rely on state benefits. I personally cannot comprehend why anyone would choose to live a life on benefits but they are out there in every town and city throughout the UK.
Any job that does not engage you, interest you or makes you depressed at the very thought of it, is a "God Awful Job". Everyone is different and we all have differing levels of tolerance. However, there has to be a point where everyone has to be accountable and take responsibility (apart from the vulnerable, needy etc).
As a democratic society in the developed world I do firmly believe that we have a duty to support the most needy in society and those that are capable of holding their own, and pulling their weight must therefore do so. In our current financial climate the resources are just not there to continue to support those who refuse to participate in activities that could just possibly steer them towards financial independence from the state.
The core principles and fundamentals of MWA in theory, and if administered sensitively should help go some way to solving the problem of persistent claimants who refuse suitable employment etc.
In response also to the earlier comment regarding paying an individual national minimum for MWA I still do not see why that participant should be paid for the activity. If someone has been unemployed long term, and relied solely on benefits then over time the total paid out will almost certainly (let say after 2 years of benefit receipts) be far in excess of what one would get paid at NMW for 4 weeks work. I for one would have no issue doing a suitable placement for no financial gain if I was in receipt of benefits and if I thought it could potentially enhance my chances of future employability.
Whilst I agree that my use of language in the original post may have been quite strong in parts I still agree with my original sentiment that there needs to be a radical attitudinal shift in how the Govt tackles persistent unemployment.
We just simply cannot afford to continue with the benefit system the way it is. The welfare state has lost its focus and direction in fully supporting those most in need. Unfortunately welfare to work providers, flaws and all, are having to increasingly cattle herd a proportion of long term claimants who are just going through the motions so that they can maintain their benefits and choose not to ever work! Surely if this situation was effectively tackled then scare resources could be geared towards providing real, tangible support and interventions to those most in need.
Okay. But I still sense some confusion here. You want to "weed out" "persistent offenders". What does that mean? Time-limiting benefits? We can have a discussion about that if you like!
ReplyDeleteI see no way that MWA could persuade the genuinely workshy to change their attitudes. Many of those who are sent on it will be the men we've both met, who are in their late 50s and have adjusted to life on benefits because nobody will employ them. They've been through New Deal and have cheerfully gone on "work placements" (usually in the voluntary sector) but they know they're never going to get a job. Then there will be those who couldn't hold down a job even if they wanted to because they're addicted to drugs or alcohol.
Your conclusions contain some faulty logic. You want to distinguish between "those most in need" and the rest, without providing any means of making that distinction. You assert that the present system is unaffordable, without evidence. (Again, are you advocating time-limiting?)
I don't know how far back your experience goes, but I first worked in the Labour Exchange many years ago. Unemployment was very low by today's standards; but there was, even then, a hard core of people who were either unemployable or had no intention of working.
Okay JSA £67, HB £90 and CT £20 Total £177 x 52 = £9204
ReplyDeleteMinimum age £6 x 30 Total £180 X 52 = £9360,
So similar in fact, but maybe eligibility for Tax Credits Housing and Council Tax benefit might siill apply you are on the minimum wage. I have no idea.
However perhaps, changing MDA JSA/Universal Credit to the equivalent of the minimum wage for a work placement will perhaps give the claimant a better perspective and a feeling of self worth, an incentive, rather than a punishment, when they embark on their placement.
With this intermecdiate benefit the employer would not be sponging of the tax payer .....
"The long term unemployed (the hard core persistent offenders) in my humble opinion need to be taken in hand, supported, directed and mentored towards sustainable employment"
Painting yellow lines http://www.bdpost.co.uk/news/residents_speak_out_after_silly_yellow_lines_appear_on_pavement_in_barking_1_865914 and the like are not going to lead to sustainable employment .
""The core principles and fundamentals of MWA in theory, and if administered sensitively should help go some way to solving the problem of persistent claimants who refuse suitable employment etc."
Theres the rub so to speak. The Job Centre capable of a sensitive approach ..... ?
I agree qith Anonymous that something drastic has to be done, but not a rehash of the same old attitudes and measures that crush the spirit of the unemployed that has prevailed and prevails..
MWA is a revised Work For Your Benefit. It will not work either in its present format, I believe. due to lack of enough work placements.
One last thing. A reminder. From the minute you sign on, MWA is a distinct possibility and it is not just for the long term unemployed. The Initial sanction is 13 weeks ..... I repeat nasty.
Many of the unemployed that Anon disparages so much do a lot of good work. One of the them has even set up an Appeal Fund to help soon-to-be made redundant staff at a "welfare-to-work" provider. People like Anon show learn to show some humility.
ReplyDeleteThe unemployed are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Take for example why current census - why wasn't this given to the unemployed? A cynic would think that the hours had been designed to make it impossible for someone on benefits to do this job. So what do we have - ex-police officers etc who are already retired on good pension out earning some pin money. The unemployed are going to jump at over £14 an hour for pushing a few forms through letter boxes. I sometimes think that the system is deliberately designed to keep the unemployed in their allotted position.
ReplyDeleteHistorian
ReplyDeleteThanks again for your response to my comment.
In terms of weeding out "persistent offenders" I do not mean in any way time limiting benefits. I do not have all the answers and dont know if there is actually a way to resolve this issue.
However, if I reflect back on my earlier comments I do think that the proportion of claimants who refuse "suitable" employment or refuse to participate in MWA for eg should suffer the consequences of benefit sanctions. It is not fair on society if the state continues to support work shy and lazy individuals. If you are capable of work and choose not to do so then why should we not expect that individual to carry out some form of work activity / community voluntary work to maintain receipt of their benefits. I dont care what anyone says on here but a culture of living on handouts for some people is immoral and fundamentally unfair on the rest of us.
Your 2nd paragraph historian refers to the "unemployable". There are many different interpretations of what some would constitute as unemployable. Some people purposely make themselves unemployable or through some unfortunate circumstance are unemployable for some other reason. I will refer here to those who purposely make themselves unemployable. I dont see why the state should have to babysit a man (for eg) in his 50's who has resigned himself to the scrap heap and "knows that no one would employ him". People have a right to benefits as we have already established but individuals do not (in my opinion) have the right to sit at home, do nothing and refuse all attempts to support and help them towards employment and still receive their full complement of state benefits. For the proportion of individuals that fall into this category then I see no issue with requesting that they engage in some form of community benefit activity in order to maintain their benefit entitlement.
You have mentioned individuals with Drug and Alcohol problems. Again I do not have the answers here but I do feel that if we were more robust in our welfare system and its administration then hopefully weeding out the persistent offenders would allow valuable resources to be redirected to those individuals most in need (alcoholics, drug addicts, disabled etc....)so that we can at least try and provide proper worthwhile health interventions etc to help people turn their lives around.
In terms of "faulty Logic" I kinda disagree. We do need a more robust system that comprehensively assesses and distinguishes between those most in need and the rest. I made an assumption in my earlier post that respondents would read between the lines and reach this conclusion organically.
The present system is unaffordable and I stand by that. We have the highest levels of unemployment in decades, we are in economic recovery mode, we have an ageing population etc etc and it is for these aforemention reasons and taking a long term (decades ahead)view that I conclude that it is unaffordable.
However, I do agree with your last paragraph.
May I also add that I thorougly value this forum and all comments that arise from the various posts. It is not my intention to offend anyone by my written thoughts but I do think it is important to air ones feelings and opinions.
Historian keep up the good work!!
Again, thanks for your comment. I suspect that we would have to compare our professional experience (in terms of where and when) to make further discussion worthwhile. Your dismissive attitude towards the over-50s who have been out of work for a long time grates on me. As I said, I knew many who cheerfully went on work placements and continued to volunteer afterwards. But they survived psychologically by adjusting to life on benefits because there was no option.
ReplyDeleteThe system does require people to be actively seeking work. You'll know that a climate has arisen in the Jobcentres where people are "sanctioned" i.e. deprived of income, for any infringement of the rules. That can only intensify. But it still doesn't answer the most important point - how do you distinguish between the workshy and the workless?
The current situation is only unaffordable if the government decides that it is. If they are successful in bringing down unemployment we would be left with the hard core which, as I said, has always been there. The only solution to that is to create jobs to which people are directed. But that would be unacceptable to this and other governments.
@Anon you said ' I dont see why the state should have to babysit a man (for eg) in his 50's who has resigned himself to the scrap heap and "knows that no one would employ him". People have a right to benefits as we have already established but individuals do not (in my opinion) have the right to sit at home, do nothing and refuse all attempts to support and help them towards employment and still receive their full complement of state benefits.'
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as a 50 ish year old man who has been unemployed I ask why do you not question the employers who are able to have ageist recruitment policy? There is an untold story here of legions of unemployed (and unemployable but not for the reasons you think) usually men in their 50s who stand literally no chance of ever working again regardless of the effort they put into the job search or their employment history or their qualifications. Look at the employment (and agency) practices and you will see how that side of the equation matters just as much.
Anonymous comes across as a feverish, overbearing parental figure lacking in compassion and ordinary human empathy. How else could you explain such comments as -
ReplyDelete"MWA is one key intervention here and if they dont like it then its only right that sanctions and consequences are handed out. Society needs to remove the scourge of persistent free loaders so that when we face the next recession the pressure on the public purse is minimised and tax revenues can be directed towards economic stability and growth rather than throwing more petrol on an already blazing furnace!"
Right, I see. In that case, why not just cut these freeloading parasites off from any subsistence welfare completely? I mean, they (and their families) may starve or end up on the streets or be crippled by some avoidable, treatable disease, but hey, I`m sure that will be worth it in order to show the leeches that the golden age of freeloading is over, eh, what?
Over the years, the welfare and benefit system has been slowly turned into an authoritarian regime dedicated to stripping people of their dignity and self-esteem. Claiming benefits just to keep a roof over your head and some food in your stomach now requires you to submit to anything that the system throws at you; submit or lose benefits.
On the other hand, if your earnings put you in the top 5%, you can pay an accountant to move your wealth around and avoid paying the tax that you should by right be paying. Tax avoidance and tax fraud costs this country about 15 times the amount attributable to benefit fraud. But hey, its so much more satisfying (and less risky) to get your Daily Mail boots on and kick the poor and the powerless than it is to go after the real freeloaders.
Talking of freeloaders - did anyone watch the Royal Wedding? Yahoo news had it right when it said that Kate (Katherine) Middleton will be pinned as the unemployed woman marrying into a welfare family.
ReplyDelete@ Mike Cobley -"Anonymous comes across as a feverish, overbearing parental figure lacking in compassion and ordinary human empathy" - I beg to differ with this very narrow and tunnel visioned opinion. My comments were about weeding out persistent work shy individuals who continue to REFUSE to engage in work activity and choose not to work. Although it is impossible to quantify the exact numbers of such individuals they do exist and unfortunately their abuse of the benefit system means that valuable and essential financial support for vulnerable individuals is being diverted away from those most in need.
ReplyDelete"Right, I see. In that case, why not just cut these freeloading parasites off from any subsistence welfare completely? I mean, they (and their families) may starve or end up on the streets or be crippled by some avoidable, treatable disease, but hey, I`m sure that will be worth it in order to show the leeches that the golden age of freeloading is over, eh, what?" - Again I dont see why tax payers should continue to support the minority of individuals who refuse to work or engage in back to work programmes. Its immoral and unfair on those who do work and do everything within their power to maintain employment and pay their taxes. Benefits are there to assist those who fall on hard times and provide subsistence to those who need it between jobs or are unable to work because of health or other issues. Benefits are not there to support those individuals who choose not to work. If someone chooses not to work then the state should not be obliged to provide a roof over their head and food in the belly.
"Over the years, the welfare and benefit system has been slowly turned into an authoritarian regime dedicated to stripping people of their dignity and self-esteem. Claiming benefits just to keep a roof over your head and some food in your stomach now requires you to submit to anything that the system throws at you; submit or lose benefits." - I agree that the benefit system over the years has become this, but ask yourself why this is the case. For too long the system has been systematically abused by a proportion of individuals choosing to claim rather than working and its now an unfortunate reality that an authoritarin regieme has been entrenched in claiming benefits because of these people. OK in the past it may have been easier to claim but because of persistent abuse of the system a more robust claims process has had to be developed.
"On the other hand, if your earnings put you in the top 5%, you can pay an accountant to move your wealth around and avoid paying the tax that you should by right be paying. Tax avoidance and tax fraud costs this country about 15 times the amount attributable to benefit fraud. But hey, its so much more satisfying (and less risky) to get your Daily Mail boots on and kick the poor and the powerless than it is to go after the real freeloaders." - Really this is not an appropriate comment to be making on a forum like this as its is not related to welfare to work. You cannot compare the two and for your information my opinions on welfare to work stem from years of working in the industry and not the dredging up of useless titbits of opinions smeared across the gutter press known as the "Daily Mail".
I know I am not alone in my opinions and once again to reiterate my original sentiment benefits should be there for those who genuinely need it but not for those who choose them as a lifestyle choice and rely on the state to support them indefinitely...
I think the problem is with your diagnosis; "For too long the system has been systematically abused by a proportion of individuals choosing to claim rather than working" and so "a more robust claims process has had to be developed." As I've said before, there have always been a proportion of people who would do anything to avoid a job. I can go back to the system where claimants were presented with a green card bearing details of a vacancy, and they were obliged to go and see the employer and get the card signed by him or her as proof. It didn't prevent work-dodging.
ReplyDeleteWhat's changed? Higher unemployment, a systemic problem caused by the nature of global capitalism, means welfare benefits cost more. And increasing numbers of 2nd and 3rd generation unemployed, without aspiration, and that's down to a number of factors which it's too complex to go into. It's right that we should seek to discourage dependence. But I ask again; how do you distinguish between the workless and the workshy? It worries me a great deal that people working for a profit-maximising private company should be in a position to make such decisions.
This particular "forum" is used more by those on the receiving end of welfare-to-work than by the providers (although we welcome those) and they are more likely to regard your views as a personal rebuke to them. Mike Cobley is entitled to point out that there are other kinds of "freeloader" who cost the country rather more than benefits claimants. He is also right to bring up the fact that a present-day claimant of out-of-work benefits is treated by the system with increasing disdain.
This blog is by no means devoted exclusively to welfare-to-work.
I am not the anonymous poster, but don't have an ID that I can use so here goes.
ReplyDeleteI live in a high unemployement area and have worked in recruitment for over ten years, including several years working in welfare to work provision.
I can assure all contributors to this thread that, at the very least in my experience, those individuals who simply refuse to work are far from a minority. I have personally worked with hundreds of individuals who not only are not prepared to work, but simply lack the intellectual faculties to do so.
I appreciate this is not true of all unemployed people, and I completely agree with my NI contributing to supporting those at need. But those individuals for whom benefit dependancy has become the preferred choice I personally advocate the most severe and limiting restrictions to be applied to anyone who has refused opportunities or support.
Having truly tried my best to help people out of long term unemployment I have been defeated by this cultural group of 'Fraudulent Claimants'.
Frankly I am convinced that the threat of homelessness would result in vast numbers of fraudulent claimants suddenly finding work.
I know that my opinions will not be popular, but please understand I have worked in this sector for a very long time on a very poor wage because I genuinely wanted to help improve things for people in my area. Frankly I've had enough of having it thrown back in my face.
And please don't try to slap the odd example of a guy volunteering in his local shop in my face. This may be true outside of my area, but I can assure you that with the clients on my caseload the majority simply do not see the advantage of leaving welfare support.
My anonymous friend - I feel Draco had a point.
Thanks for reading.