Job Centre have a minimum sanctions quota. Disgusting.

[Bettsj2]

How does this differ from slavery , other than the fact that they have to buy their own food, rent clothes etc

Why not just give them free clothes rent and food and just call it what it is .

Or, if there's work to do, just give someone a job.

[Finnegan]

I think you're misunderstanding Sly, Zingo.

He's suggesting they be given jobs, as in at least minimum wage, I think? Not forced in to mandatory litter picking IE: Work Programme?

[Zingari]

I think you're misunderstanding Sly, Zingo.

He's suggesting they be given jobs, as in at least minimum wage, I think? Not forced in to mandatory litter picking IE: Work Programme?

Quite possibly , but read his post number 31 , quote

"I've never understood why they don't put people claiming benefits to work for the local council. Even basic work like litter picking, etc etc at least make them work for the £70 odd a week!"

It doesn't really leave too much room for misinterpretation , as "the £70 odd a week" they would be working for would be the benefits money , not proper pay.

It very much sounds like forced labour to me .

Couple this with his suggestion of giving them food and nappy vouchers instead of cash and I'm fairly sure I've not completely misunderstood his attitude towards the unemployed .

That said , I do have a little sympathy with these sorts of suggestions, but at the same time they make me feel very uneasy .

[flowwolf]

We wouldn't have so many potholes if they were repaired correctly in the first place.

I've seen one's which have just been stuffed with asphalt and it doesn't even knit together!

Must have been repaired by the unemployed then ?

[flowwolf]

I'm sure there's plenty of people currently out of work that have previously paid their dues in tax from previous jobs.

The overwhelming majority who claim JSA benefit each year spend at least three quarters of their time in work, of that 40% have never claimed before and it comes as a shock and It's only a small minority around 11% that stay on the dole long term.

The 11% need rinsing out but if we carry on labelling all out of work people scroungers, today's striver's will become tomorrows scroungers and losing a job can happen to anyone of us.

Agreed. But if I became unemployed I would have no trouble agreeing to a means test and would readily do any work that the government provided. That way I keep my self respect and earn more than being on benifits. That is what I think the government should be doing creating jobs that urgently need doing in this country that no one is doing , ie potholes helping out at overburdened hospitals ect they pay you a living wage and as per everyone else you then pay tax and national insurance . Anyone refusing to do jobs allocated gets fvck all simple.

[Alf Bentley]

People too fecking lazy to even apply for three jobs a week and follow a set of basic requirements? Sympathy? Not much. Admin errors which are exploited to hit targets? Dodgy feckers should be sacked.

It's perfectly reasonable for them to actively seek out and remove hand outs from the people who aren't genuinely looking for work. There will of course be examples for the Guardian to pick out - like this one where an obese person complains he cannot afford food - that make it look unfair but in reality a target based system is probably the most efficient way to weed out the scum.

Some people are missing the point here. They are specifically targeting the WRONG people - the vulnerable, incapable and naive (dyslexics and the mentally ill are cited). As an interviewee comments, the minority of professional scroungers (who should be targeted) know the system better than the staff and are perfectly capable of applying for 3 jobs per week...and ensuring they don't get them. Targeting the wrong people is NOT "the most efficient way", Moose, it's about as inefficient as you can get!

A mate of mine (whom I'd met through work) was targeted like this 2 years ago. He'd been long-term employed through no fault of his own and no lack of effort - he'd applied for jobs, done schemes & voluntary work and improved his skills through training. He wouldn't suit highly-skilled, high-stress or heavy manual work, but is sufficiently capable and I.T.-literate to do a basic-level clerical or public service job (indeed, he now has a job doing just that). He's also a bit vague and naive. He'd highlighted his PC literacy, but the Jobcentre adviser mentioned a programmer's job, without insisting that he had to apply for it. He rightly judged that he was completely unqualified for a programmer's job, so didn't apply. Jobcentre promptly suspended his benefits for 6 months for not applying for a recommended job...no joke as he's 40+ and living independently in a flat, not with family etc. He knew someone who worked at Jobcentre and told him all about this target culture - staff hitting their targets by focussing on easy victims (the vulnerable, incapable and naive), not the professional scroungers. No doubt a professional scrounger would have applied for that programmer job, not got it and carried on drawing benefits...

Fortunately, my mate got his MP to intervene and the benefits suspension was overturned - and he now has a full-time job.

By all means, target the "fecking lazy" and "people who aren't genuinely looking for work"....in fact, I think it would be a very good idea to do that. A lot better than causing major, unjustified hardship by targeting the vulnerable, the incapable and the naive!

[MooseBreath]

All I'm reading is that someone you know didn't apply for a job he didn't want because he thought it would be too hard. All you've got to do is apply and the employer will decide if you're suitable.

[Captain...]

All I'm reading is that someone you know didn't apply for a job he didn't want because he thought it would be too hard. All you've got to do is apply and the employer will decide if you're suitable.

And that is why you are ignorant, so entrenched in your own belief that the world is exactly how you see it, all you do is spend your time looking to support your view point.

Try reading it again and tell me you don't see what is wrong with the current practice.

I'll even help:

The career scrounger would have applied for a job that he was unqualified for and not got it, thus still scrounging benefits, anyone in their right mind would realise that applying for a job that they don't even come close to meeting the minimum requirements for is a waste of their time and the interviewers time.

So why are the job centre recommending jobs to people that have no hope of getting them? Why are we paying for an organisation that is so incompetent they can't understand that someone with decent computer skills isn't suitable for a job as a computer programmer. Or someone with health issues isn't suitable for manual labour? Surely we should be punishing those that apply for jobs that they aren't qualified for and waste everyone's time, and are really making no effort to get off JSA.

You want to be rid of scroungers you need to look at the institute that has let them survive and flourish for so long, the Job Centre is just a box ticking exercise, you learn what box to tick, and what hoops to jump through you will get your money.

[flowwolf]

Some people are missing the point here. They are specifically targeting the WRONG people - the vulnerable, incapable and naive (dyslexics and the mentally ill are cited). As an interviewee comments, the minority of professional scroungers (who should be targeted) know the system better than the staff and are perfectly capable of applying for 3 jobs per week...and ensuring they don't get them. Targeting the wrong people is NOT "the most efficient way", Moose, it's about as inefficient as you can get!

A mate of mine (whom I'd met through work) was targeted like this 2 years ago. He'd been long-term employed through no fault of his own and no lack of effort - he'd applied for jobs, done schemes & voluntary work and improved his skills through training. He wouldn't suit highly-skilled, high-stress or heavy manual work, but is sufficiently capable and I.T.-literate to do a basic-level clerical or public service job (indeed, he now has a job doing just that). He's also a bit vague and naive. He'd highlighted his PC literacy, but the Jobcentre adviser mentioned a programmer's job, without insisting that he had to apply for it. He rightly judged that he was completely unqualified for a programmer's job, so didn't apply. Jobcentre promptly suspended his benefits for 6 months for not applying for a recommended job...no joke as he's 40+ and living independently in a flat, not with family etc. He knew someone who worked at Jobcentre and told him all about this target culture - staff hitting their targets by focussing on easy victims (the vulnerable, incapable and naive), not the professional scroungers. No doubt a professional scrounger would have applied for that programmer job, not got it and carried on drawing benefits...

Fortunately, my mate got his MP to intervene and the benefits suspension was overturned - and he now has a full-time job.

By all means, target the "fecking lazy" and "people who aren't genuinely looking for work"....in fact, I think it would be a very good idea to do that. A lot better than causing major, unjustified hardship by targeting the vulnerable, the incapable and the naive!

Absolutely spot on. That is why a personalised means test would sort out the spongers from those who realy need the help. Anyone refusing a means test would mean they have something to hide.

[Captain...]

Absolutely spot on. That is why a personalised means test would sort out the spongers from those who realy need the help. Anyone refusing a means test would mean they have something to hide.

Problem with personalised means tests is they cost money, and this government doesn't realise you need to spend money to save money, so they will continue with this inadequate system of sanctions, that will lead to appeals and more time being spent dealing with people that have been unfairly placed on sanctions, while the career scroungers play the system, applying for jobs they are wholly unsuitable for.

[pSinatra]

It seems that the vulnerable & 'new' to the system are the ones being targeted.

My mate was sanctioned when he first went onto JSA, for the same reasons people have already stated. He was recommended a job he had zero chance of getting & lost his JSA for a while. He has quickly learnt how to play the game & jump through the right hoops. He is actively looking for work & he works for me sometimes. I can't give him full time work, so the job centre are still on his back pushing him to apply for jobs.

I don't know what it's called, but he's on a government website advertising jobs. He is required to apply for 6 jobs every 2 weeks (iirc) & I've seen him meeting job centre requirements. He logs onto the website & clicks 'apply' to 6 jobs.......& his details are forwarded to that company. He doesn't care what the jobs are - he has done what is required of him by the job centre & it has taken him 30 seconds. Sorted!!

He is actively seeking full-time employment & he applies for several jobs a week, but he doesn't even tell the job centre about these. They are actually of little help to him in terms of finding a job. Isn't that what they're for? We pay tax to support people who need help via benefits. We also pay taxes to support an organisation that costs millions to help these same people find employment........which they piss away ticking boxes & fudging figures!!

The benefits system may need an overhaul...........but so does the Department for Work & Pensions.

[MooseBreath]

And that is why you are ignorant, so entrenched in your own belief that the world is exactly how you see it, all you do is spend your time looking to support your view point.

Try reading it again and tell me you don't see what is wrong with the current practice.

I'll even help:

The career scrounger would have applied for a job that he was unqualified for and not got it, thus still scrounging benefits, anyone in their right mind would realise that applying for a job that they don't even come close to meeting the minimum requirements for is a waste of their time and the interviewers time.

So why are the job centre recommending jobs to people that have no hope of getting them? Why are we paying for an organisation that is so incompetent they can't understand that someone with decent computer skills isn't suitable for a job as a computer programmer. Or someone with health issues isn't suitable for manual labour? Surely we should be punishing those that apply for jobs that they aren't qualified for and waste everyone's time, and are really making no effort to get off JSA.

You want to be rid of scroungers you need to look at the institute that has let them survive and flourish for so long, the Job Centre is just a box ticking exercise, you learn what box to tick, and what hoops to jump through you will get your money.

If you think you're good on a computer and enjoy working on a computer then applying for a job as a programmer seems perfectly reasonable to me. Not all programming jobs are particularly complex. They may have been looking for someone who was simply capable of learning a few basic programming skills. The employer may have had a suitable role even if bot exactly as advertised. The employer may have been able to offer useful advice. The candidate may have learned from the experience, by displaying his desire he may have got his foot in the door. The job centre set him up with a fantastic opportunity where he had nothing whatsoever to lose, and what did he do, "oooh no, no way, can't do that, never done it before, can't do it, can't do this one, next, no can't do it, never done it can't do it."

[Captain...]

If you think you're good on a computer and enjoy working on a computer then applying for a job as a programmer seems perfectly reasonable to me. Not all programming jobs are particularly complex. They may have been looking for someone who was simply capable of learning a few basic programming skills. The employer may have had a suitable role even if bot exactly as advertised. The employer may have been able to offer useful advice. The candidate may have learned from the experience, by displaying his desire he may have got his foot in the door. The job centre set him up with a fantastic opportunity where he had nothing whatsoever to lose, and what did he do, "oooh no, no way, can't do that, never done it before, can't do it, can't do this one, next, no can't do it, never done it can't do it."

No, he would have been rejected straight away as there would be plenty of qualified candidates with experience of programming, being computer literate is a completely different matter to being a programmer, and no employer would offer complete on the job training to someone who had never done any programming before, maybe the job centre should have arranged for him to go on a programming course, improve his skill set, rather than set him up for jobs he is under qualified for then remove his benefits.

You are right he was stupid not to apply for it, but not for any of the reasons you said, he would have got a rejection letter and kept his benefits, nothing more, that is why he was stupid for not applying.

[MooseBreath]

No, he would have been rejected straight away as there would be plenty of qualified candidates with experience of programming, being computer literate is a completely different matter to being a programmer, and no employer would offer complete on the job training to someone who had never done any programming before, maybe the job centre should have arranged for him to go on a programming course, improve his skill set, rather than set him up for jobs he is under qualified for then remove his benefits.

You are right he was stupid not to apply for it, but not for any of the reasons you said, he would have got a rejection letter and kept his benefits, nothing more, that is why he was stupid for not applying.

That's all speculation really since we don't know exactly how the job was advertised. There must be some kind of system already in place which determines the kind of jobs people with certain skills should be expected to apply for. Personally I'd favour quite wide boundaries as it gets people active and applying for jobs. If you keep it very narrow you're just asking for people to disregard everything because they think it won't suit them. Examples abound, "this won't fit into my routine", "this work is too physical", "this work is too high stress", "i've never done it before", "i don't want to work Saturdays"... Etc etc all leads to a state of inertia and if the hob centre accepts such crap excuses then it will be even easier for people to take advantage. I know in your lefty world it is only possible to see an issue from one angle at a time, but perhaps consider that a few examples where the system does bot work perfectly is worth it if the end result is less people taking advantage.

[Captain...]

That's all speculation really since we don't know exactly how the job was advertised. There must be some kind of system already in place which determines the kind of jobs people with certain skills should be expected to apply for. Personally I'd favour quite wide boundaries as it gets people active and applying for jobs. If you keep it very narrow you're just asking for people to disregard everything because they think it won't suit them. Examples abound, "this won't fit into my routine", "this work is too physical", "this work is too high stress", "i've never done it before", "i don't want to work Saturdays"... Etc etc all leads to a state of inertia and if the hob centre accepts such crap excuses then it will be even easier for people to take advantage. I know in your lefty world it is only possible to see an issue from one angle at a time, but perhaps consider that a few examples where the system does bot work perfectly is worth it if the end result is less people taking advantage.

Haha, always bringing the fact I'm left handed into it

But the system clearly isn't working as it is, we have people playing the system, as you and others are quick to point out, and becoming career scroungers, we have a need to impose sanctions targets to get benefits down, which in fact doesn't target the work shy just the stupid/lazy/naive, you may say they are one in the same, but the career scroungers are the ones we want off the system first.

The latest stats say there are 30 people applying for every job, what is the point in forcing people to apply for jobs that they don't meet the minimum standard of experience and education for, when they could be applying for jobs that are suitable. If the Job Centre can't see that someone is hopelessly under-qualified for a job, then they really aren't doing their job correctly, and punishing someone for applying for jobs they thought they had a better chance of getting is nonsense.

[flowwolf]

Stop all unemployment benifits to those who are physically able to work and see just how quickly they lose those fussy habits of being choosey which job to go for. Having no money soon brings people to their senses.

If you did a nation wide poll with the question being do you believe the benifit system is being routinely abused ? 90% would say yes and the other 10% are the abusers.

The main problem is that over the past forty years this country has gone from being a manufacturing producer of goods to nothing more than consumers . I often wonder where do people get there wages ? In Leicester alone we have seen the hosiery industry, boot and shoe, engineeering and numerous other trades all gone to the wall. Now before long lots of shop workers jobs will go thanks to the internet shopping.

Take away a mans right to earn a living and feed and clothe his family and you have a recipe for cival unrest and a rise in racism brought on by to many coming to this country with not enough jobs to go around as it is. Hitler used the jews as scapegoats for just such a scenario that this country is heading for and god help us all.

[MooseBreath]

I don't think asking the unemployed to apply for jobs before giving them their hand outs is too much. If anything I think it should be stricter as like captain says "some scum are still slipping through the net." Push the job application requirement up, impose sanctions sooner, get these people to account for what they're doing day in day out before dishing out free money.

[Captain...]

I don't think asking the unemployed to apply for jobs before giving them their hand outs is too much. If anything I think it should be stricter as like captain says "some scum are still slipping through the net." Push the job application requirement up, impose sanctions sooner, get these people to account for what they're doing day in day out before dishing out free money.

We shouldn't be asking them to apply for jobs, we should be finding them jobs, otherwise it is just a box ticking exercise, he applied for 3 jobs this week, he didn't get any because he wasn't qualified for any of them, but he can have his benefits.

[DB11]

That is what I think the government should be doing creating jobs that urgently need doing in this country that no one is doing

Hitler did that. I mean it was one of the good things he did; turning around Germany's economy and building the autobahns, but aside from that the rest of his time in government left a little *ahem* a lot to be desired.

[flowwolf]

Hitler did that. I mean it was one of the good things he did; turning around Germany's economy and building the autobahns, but aside from that the rest of his time in government left a little *ahem* a lot to be desired.

So apart from the final solution and the second world war he had some good ideas then.

[21st Century Fox]

The autobahns predated Hitler, his regime only oversaw about a quarter of it's construction.

[RonnieTodger]

I was on JSA for about 4 months. I haven't watched that vid yet but I'd always thought you had to either be a bellend or an idiot to get your money suspended. Just do what they say and apply for some jobs and they can't suspend it. If you're that desperate for money you'll do what they say whether you agree with it or not. Not a nice position to be in but play by the rules and get on with it. Or get your money stopped.

It's not as Black & White as that though, mate. I was kicked off for pursuing a coaching-job as opposed to attending this work-experience programme with the Leicester Riders store, who strictly employ "volunteers". I understand there's obviously going to be lazy arseholes who'll happily take the fall for not working and settle for £56-£71 a week. I was on it for about 6 months on & off, and hated it. I suppose the awful experience of it is a good motivation to get a job.

[MooseBreath]

We shouldn't be asking them to apply for jobs, we should be finding them jobs, otherwise it is just a box ticking exercise, he applied for 3 jobs this week, he didn't get any because he wasn't qualified for any of them, but he can have his benefits.

Why should "we" be finding them jobs? They already get free money, they've got nothing else to do with their time, they should be out there looking for jobs for themselves. They should then simply report back to the job centre detailing what they've been doing to get a job. I even think I'd like to see people made to report their whereabouts and what they've been doing during office hours each day. We all have to turn up to work and if we don't our employers want to know where we are. I don't see why we can't take steps to ensure that scroungers are spending at least seven hours a day looking for work. If they're just lazing around in bed then stop their benefits. If they're in the pub on a Monday afternoon stop their benefits. These people should be going hell to leather looking for work as close to 24/7 as possible. If you're genuinely doing your best and treating your job search seriously then you can have your hand out for as long as you need it. If you're expecting someone else to find a job for you then you're a lost cause and it would be better for everyone if you just died.

[Captain...]

Why should "we" be finding them jobs? They already get free money, they've got nothing else to do with their time, they should be out there looking for jobs for themselves. They should then simply report back to the job centre detailing what they've been doing to get a job. I even think I'd like to see people made to report their whereabouts and what they've been doing during office hours each day. We all have to turn up to work and if we don't our employers want to know where we are. I don't see why we can't take steps to ensure that scroungers are spending at least seven hours a day looking for work. If they're just lazing around in bed then stop their benefits. If they're in the pub on a Monday afternoon stop their benefits. These people should be going hell to leather looking for work as close to 24/7 as possible. If you're genuinely doing your best and treating your job search seriously then you can have your hand out for as long as you need it. If you're expecting someone else to find a job for you then you're a lost cause and it would be better for everyone if you just died.

Fine if you are going to be pedantic, I will change my statement:

We shouldn't be asking them to apply for jobs (your words), we should be telling them to get jobs.

That was the point I was making, and they should be punished for applying for jobs they have no hope of getting not rewarded.

[Captain...]

...and the job centre should help them in the search for jobs, and provide training (the cost of which will be deducted once they find a job), not facilitate a life on benefits.

The big problem with this is that there aren't enough jobs at the moment, so this is where the Government needs to work harder in creating jobs and securing big contracts, not selling them overseas.