Benefits Street

[pSinatra]

Interesting.... They should do the opposite! Not bother too much with people who've been signed on a for a few weeks, unless they ask for help, and concentrate on those who've been out of work longer, who are more likely to need either help/advice or a kick up the arse.

 

I get the impression they target the newly unemployed because they are naive & haven't a clue how to play the system.  They will suggest a job that is clearly not worth applying for to a new claimant, they won't apply & then they're sanctioned.  The long-termers would equally understand that they won't get the job, but apply anyway.......to secure their benefits.

 

I know a few people that claim JSA.  One or two of them do cash-in-hand jobs & see JSA as 'free' extra money.  I suppose they may go legit one day, but for now they are happy how they are.  They know how to jump through the hoops & get away with it.  They list a few jobs they've applied for, apply for jobs the job centre suggest & say whatever is required of them.  They've learnt how to play the system & it's difficult to trip them up.

 

The Job Centre is driven by reducing unemployment figures through sanctioning.........& that means targeting new claimants.  It's got very little with helping people find employment.

 

Whenever the government publish figures stating that unemployment has dropped, I always think that's just a increase in the number of people sanctioned.  It doesn't necessarily mean those people have found work.

 

I would rather the government publish figures relating to the number of people employed than the number of people unemployed.

[Webbo]

I get the impression they target the newly unemployed because they are naive & haven't a clue how to play the system.  They will suggest a job that is clearly not worth applying for to a new claimant, they won't apply & then they're sanctioned.  The long-termers would equally understand that they won't get the job, but apply anyway.......to secure their benefits.

 

I know a few people that claim JSA.  One or two of them do cash-in-hand jobs & see JSA as 'free' extra money.  I suppose they may go legit one day, but for now they are happy how they are.  They know how to jump through the hoops & get away with it.  They list a few jobs they've applied for, apply for jobs the job centre suggest & say whatever is required of them.  They've learnt how to play the system & it's difficult to trip them up.

 

The Job Centre is driven by reducing unemployment figures through sanctioning.........& that means targeting new claimants.  It's got very little with helping people find employment.

 

Whenever the government publish figures stating that unemployment has dropped, I always think that's just a increase in the number of people sanctioned.  It doesn't necessarily mean those people have found work.

 

I would rather the government publish figures relating to the number of people employed than the number of people unemployed.

They do both. I agree about the job centre though. When my wife wanted a job when the kids were old enough to go school she went to the job centre she had to fill in a form saying what she could do. 1 question was "how far can you travel to work" we had no idea so put 10 miles, apparently she should have written 15 miles, although nobody told us that so she was banned from applying for 6 months.

 

When ASDA opened near us she had to apply through the job centre, because she wasn't on the unemployed figures she was told she wasn't suitable. fortunately my sister worked at ASDA Narborough Rd and got her an interview, she's been there ever since.

[pSinatra]

They do both. I agree about the job centre though. When my wife wanted a job when the kids were old enough to go school she went to the job centre she had to fill in a form saying what she could do. 1 question was "how far can you travel to work" we had no idea so put 10 miles, apparently she should have written 15 miles, although nobody told us that so she was banned from applying for 6 months.

 

When ASDA opened near us she had to apply through the job centre, because she wasn't on the unemployed figures she was told she wasn't suitable. fortunately my sister worked at ASDA Narborough Rd and got her an interview, she's been there ever since.

 

Exactly.

 

There seems to be a 'missing' number of people who don't show up on any employment figures.  They're not working.......but they're not unemployed?

 

I'm glad it worked out in the end for you.

[Jon the Hat]

Exactly.

 

There seems to be a 'missing' number of people who don't show up on any employment figures.  They're not working.......but they're not unemployed?

 

I'm glad it worked out in the end for you.

 

Unemployed figures exclude those not looking for work.  If you are at home raising your kids and not looking for employment what is the issue?

[Alf Bentley]

 

The Job Centre is driven by reducing unemployment figures through sanctioning.........& that means targeting new claimants.  It's got very little with helping people find employment.

 

Whenever the government publish figures stating that unemployment has dropped, I always think that's just a increase in the number of people sanctioned.  It doesn't necessarily mean those people have found work.

 

I would rather the government publish figures relating to the number of people employed than the number of people unemployed.

 

To be fair, stats are published for employment as well as unemployment, it's just that the latter have always had a higher profile.

 

The employment stats show record numbers in employment in absolute terms (but not as a percentage), although unemployment remains high (if falling). A lot of this is explained by the fact that the working age population has shot up in recent years, particularly due to immigration. The quality and security of those jobs is quite another matter.

 

There are 2 different measurements of unemployment: the claimant count (people on benefits looking for work) and the Labour Force Survey (which I worked on in the 1980s!). The LFS is a longstanding national survey of a representative sample of households, asking respondents what work they did last month, whether they were looking for work etc. Benefits sanctions might explain some of the fall in the claimant count, but not in the Labour Force Survey stats.

 

Here's a graph comparing the 2 sets of stats: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/september-2013/statistical-bulletin.html#tab-Comparison-between-Unemployment-and-the-Claimant-Count

The 2 graphs seem to be quite closely aligned....though the claimant count has fallen more in the last 1-2 years, which would support your theory. Not sure that it's conclusive, though.

[Merging Cultures]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/02/ill-stand-as-an-mp-white-dees-spectator-diary/ 

 

White Dee writing for the speccy.

 

'writing' yeah, no. Clearly someone else wrote this for her.

 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/02/ill-stand-as-an-mp-white-dees-spectator-diary/

[pSinatra]

Unemployed figures exclude those not looking for work.  If you are at home raising your kids and not looking for employment what is the issue?

 

Home makers are not actively seeking work, not claiming JSA & not showing up on unemployment figures.  They may well be claiming other benefits, but that is fine.

 

Webbo's wife was actively seeking work, wasn't entitled to JSA & was effectively sanctioned.  Her circumstances had changed, but still didn't show up on unemployment figures.  The same as every person sanctioned.

 

There is a large group of people who have been sanctioned for various reasons.  They may be actively seeking work but they don't receive JSA, so do not count as unemployed.  They have no money, no job & are not considered unemployed........which I dare say, suits the government just fine.

[Alf Bentley]

Home makers are not actively seeking work, not claiming JSA & not showing up on unemployment figures.  They may well be claiming other benefits, but that is fine.

 

Webbo's wife was actively seeking work, wasn't entitled to JSA & was effectively sanctioned.  Her circumstances had changed, but still didn't show up on unemployment figures.  The same as every person sanctioned.

 

There is a large group of people who have been sanctioned for various reasons.  They may be actively seeking work but they don't receive JSA, so do not count as unemployed.  They have no money, no job & are not considered unemployed........which I dare say, suits the government just fine.

 

People who are sanctioned, or who find themselves in Webbo's wife's situation, would not show up in the claimant count version of the unemployment figures....but WOULD show up in the Labour Force Survey figures. So, any divergence between the 2 sets of stats is interesting. The graph that I posted above shows that there has been some divergence recently, but I'm not sure whether it's big enough to be viewed as statistically significant....yet (see graph link above).

 

Completely agree with your main point, though. It's an absolute disgrace the way that many unemployed claimants are being targeted for sanctions. As well as causing a lot of grief to my nephew and to my parents, who've had to bail him out, the Job Centre has been actively HINDERING his attempts to find work, as he's had to spend time fighting to get his benefits back, appealing, trying to find money to live on....instead of looking for work!! In the meantime, it sounds as if the people who SHOULD be sanctioned (the ones playing the system and not seeking work) are not the ones being targeted for sanctions!!

[MikeyT]

From The Birmingham Mail:

 

Benefits Street star White Dee has announced she is to stand for Parliament.

Deirdre Kelly, known in the controversial documentary as White Dee, plans to stand as an independent candidate in her home constituency of Birmingham Ladywood.

And she announced her political ambitions with a blast at the Government - for giving too many benefits to the unemployed.

 

[pSinatra]

People who are sanctioned, or who find themselves in Webbo's wife's situation, would not show up in the claimant count version of the unemployment figures....but WOULD show up in the Labour Force Survey figures. So, any divergence between the 2 sets of stats is interesting. The graph that I posted above shows that there has been some divergence recently, but I'm not sure whether it's big enough to be viewed as statistically significant....yet (see graph link above).

 

Completely agree with your main point, though. It's an absolute disgrace the way that many unemployed claimants are being targeted for sanctions. As well as causing a lot of grief to my nephew and to my parents, who've had to bail him out, the Job Centre has been actively HINDERING his attempts to find work, as he's had to spend time fighting to get his benefits back, appealing, trying to find money to live on....instead of looking for work!! In the meantime, it sounds as if the people who SHOULD be sanctioned (the ones playing the system and not seeking work) are not the ones being targeted for sanctions!!

 

Cheers for the info & very interesting.  Although not comprehensive, it would seem that the Labour Force Survey is a more reliable (at least trustworthy) source.

 

I tend to agree with the Captain, that there needs to be a change of direction & considerable investment in how the unemployed are guided back into work.  I know of similar instances to your nephew & it's easy to understand why they struggle to find work (or even get up in the morning) when it always seems like nothing will go right for you, as hard as you try.

 

The government have forced themselves into a corner by taking a tough stance on benefit scroungers, they need the figures to match & bollocks to anyone caught in the crossfire........& bollocks for your reasons for claiming benefit.  It's a short term approach to a long term problem.  Why run the risk of investing in the unemployed & the unemployable when there's a very good chance you won't be in government by the time there's anything positive to report & have another party steal your glory?

[Mike Oxlong]

Home makers are not actively seeking work, not claiming JSA & not showing up on unemployment figures. They may well be claiming other benefits, but that is fine.

Webbo's wife was actively seeking work, wasn't entitled to JSA & was effectively sanctioned. Her circumstances had changed, but still didn't show up on unemployment figures. The same as every person sanctioned.

There is a large group of people who have been sanctioned for various reasons. They may be actively seeking work but they don't receive JSA, so do not count as unemployed. They have no money, no job & are not considered unemployed........which I dare say, suits the government just fine.

Brilliant!

Perhaps she could provide a moral compass to those nest feathering, expense swindling MPs, but then again .....

[Strokes]

From The Birmingham Mail:

Benefits Street star White Dee has announced she is to stand for Parliament.

Deirdre Kelly, known in the controversial documentary as White Dee, plans to stand as an independent candidate in her home constituency of Birmingham Ladywood.

And she announced her political ambitions with a blast at the Government - for giving too many benefits to the unemployed.

priceless

[Rincewind]

I wonder how many people because of the sanctioning have given up on JSA and work cash in hand.

I know someone a few years back dealt in second hand furniture house clearances and bred dogs. As far as I know he was not claiming anything and all his sales were in cash. His missus was a teacher so worked.

If I could have got a job cash in hand for about or above JSA I would have done it and signed off. How many people are fed up with the job centre to do that. They did not encourage me to step up looking for work but the way I did it.

I could not have done it for as long as some though. It was getting to me.

[Merging Cultures]

I wonder how many people because of the sanctioning have given up on JSA and work cash in hand.

I know someone a few years back dealt in second hand furniture house clearances and bred dogs. As far as I know he was not claiming anything and all his sales were in cash. His missus was a teacher so worked.

If I could have got a job cash in hand for about or above JSA I would have done it and signed off. How many people are fed up with the job centre to do that. They did not encourage me to step up looking for work but the way I did it.

I could not have done it for as long as some though. It was getting to me.

 

How many are doing cash in hand jobs and claiming? How many hours a week do claimants actually have to spend at the job centre? It might be frustrating, but so is work, I stick out 40hrs of work to get money, I am sure I could stick out x hours at the job center to get money too, even if I was getting cash in hand work elsewhere.

[absolutelegend]

I know a few people on the sick who do cash in hand work....5 days a week.

The argument that just because someone has been signed off sick that they are not fit to work would be laughable if they werent bringing in far more money than me, with a fair chunk at my expense.

It iscurrently far far too easy to be signed off sick.

[Alf Bentley]

How many are doing cash in hand jobs and claiming? How many hours a week do claimants actually have to spend at the job centre? It might be frustrating, but so is work, I stick out 40hrs of work to get money, I am sure I could stick out x hours at the job center to get money too, even if I was getting cash in hand work elsewhere.

 

I know a few people on the sick who do cash in hand work....5 days a week.

The argument that just because someone has been signed off sick that they are not fit to work would be laughable if they werent bringing in far more money than me, with a fair chunk at my expense.

It iscurrently far far too easy to be signed off sick.

 

I don't think anyone's complaining about people having to spend too long at the Job Centre. The complaint is that the Job Centre is actively looking for pretexts to stop the benefits of people who genuinely want to work, instead of helping them find work - or at least allowing them to get on with looking.....As always, some take the piss - and they're the ones who should be targeted.

 

There have always been people who work cash in hand and claim benefits - or who work cash in hand and evade tax (I wonder how many plumbers and electricians declare their full income for tax purposes?). Someone getting a few extra quid to get by doesn't bother me - there's no point getting eaten up by jealousy. People who work full-time cash-in-hand and either claim benefits or fail to pay tax should be targeted, though, together with corporations and their executives who hide millions in offshore bank accounts to avoid or evade tax (arrest the evaders and close the loopholes for legal tax avoidance).

[Merging Cultures]

I don't think anyone's complaining about people having to spend too long at the Job Centre. The complaint is that the Job Centre is actively looking for pretexts to stop the benefits of people who genuinely want to work, instead of helping them find work - or at least allowing them to get on with looking.....As always, some take the piss - and they're the ones who should be targeted.

 

There have always been people who work cash in hand and claim benefits - or who work cash in hand and evade tax (I wonder how many plumbers and electricians declare their full income for tax purposes?). Someone getting a few extra quid to get by doesn't bother me - there's no point getting eaten up by jealousy. People who work full-time cash-in-hand and either claim benefits or fail to pay tax should be targeted, though, together with corporations and their executives who hide millions in offshore bank accounts to avoid or evade tax (arrest the evaders and close the loopholes for legal tax avoidance).

 

"I wonder how many people because of the sanctioning have given up on JSA and work cash in hand."

 

Perhaps I missed what Rincewind was saying. I read it to say that because there are some obstacles, or potential sanctioning, people give up and work cash in hand. Surely if you are meeting their requirements they cannot sanction you. If you don't meet the requirements, then you don't meet the requirements.

 

Are job centre staff incentives that perverse that they 'sanction' people who are eligible? Is there no option to complain if you are able to prove you met the requirements and sanctioned unfairly?

To be honest I don't know enough about 'sactioning', as I said, I read Rincewind's comment that people were worried about being sanctioned and therefore gave up rather than meet the requirements.

[DennisNedry]

I wonder how typical or recent that was? If that's true and widespread, then it's absolutely stupid. The people who are long-term unemployed are precisely the people whom resources should be focused on - to help them find work/retrain, in the first instance, and to compel them to get lively if they don't do it voluntarily. Most people on the dole are out of work for a few weeks/months, then back in work - and would get back into work with very little assistance/compulsion. So, it's crazy that resources are being used to harass the short-term unemployed, who aren't a serious problem.

 

I wonder how typical your story is, though. A couple of years ago, before the recent crackdown, an unemployed mate of mine (now in work) had his benefits stopped precisely because he'd failed to apply for a computer programming job suggested by the Job Centre. As he only had basic IT skills, he correctly concluded that he'd be wasting his time So unless he voluntarily told them that he'd not applied, they must have checked with the employer. If Job Centres don't do that, they should - but focus it on the long-term unemployed who've been confirmed as fit for work and not in need of retraining. It wouldn't take much to phone 1 of the employers they said they'd applied to, say every couple of weeks.

 

 

Would that work, I wonder? A lot of vacancies, particularly senior ones, are filled through adverts in the press or contact online. Many employers also choose to recruit via employment agencies, when the Job Centre is free (I think) and they have to pay the agencies - there must be reasons for that. To compete and make a profit, I think Job Centres would not only have to massively improve their service, but would also have to significantly improve the calibre of the applicants that they were trying to sell to employers. I appreciate that you recognise the need for investment, but it seems like a truly massive, long-term transformation would be required, taking years to achieve.

 

You don't even need to apply for jobs every week to get JSA.

 

I was on it for 6 months in early 2012, and basically I had to fill in a form to show 3 things I had done to look for work that week. Because I was living with my parents and had no money worries and I was enjoying all the free time I suddenly had, I didn't really intend to get a job. So on occasion I'd just scribble 3 made up things in the booklet in the morning.

1: Read Leicester mercury Wednesday job edition

2. Searched jobsite.co.uk

3. Dropped CV in to *insert shop here*

 

Jobs a goodun. I could only stand feeling like a parasite for so long though, the guilt got to me eventually

Those 6 months were happy times though!

[Rincewind]

I did the same my last 9-12 months. What I meant is now from what i have heard they can sanction you for the slightest thing. I even heard of someone sanctioned for not responding to a letter about an appointment that was received after the date. Any appeal takes 6-8 weeks to process so that time is with little or no money coming in. The staff do not have incentives but targets. Failure to meet them means being asked why by management, Some are OK and genuine want to help but others have a 'Nazi' approach for want of a better word and look down on the claimants. For the not so wised up who want to find a job this can be embarrassing and daunting. The monotony was also getting to me and frustration of rejections and applications being ignored. Of course if you do not apply and just put anything down whilst having other income there is no problem. I was always worried that they might pick up on something that I had done right. A little bit of guilt in the back of my mind I suppose.

[Alf Bentley]

"I wonder how many people because of the sanctioning have given up on JSA and work cash in hand."

 

Perhaps I missed what Rincewind was saying. I read it to say that because there are some obstacles, or potential sanctioning, people give up and work cash in hand. Surely if you are meeting their requirements they cannot sanction you. If you don't meet the requirements, then you don't meet the requirements.

 

Are job centre staff incentives that perverse that they 'sanction' people who are eligible? Is there no option to complain if you are able to prove you met the requirements and sanctioned unfairly?

To be honest I don't know enough about 'sactioning', as I said, I read Rincewind's comment that people were worried about being sanctioned and therefore gave up rather than meet the requirements.

 

People are sanctioned and have their benefits stopped on technicalities or stitch-ups. See post no. 1226 re. my nephew being sanctioned because he'd been unable to log in to post job search info, even though he'd been applying for jobs and had taken printed evidence to the Job Centre. See post no. 1246 re. my mate who was sanctioned despite applying for other jobs, because he didn't apply for a completely unsuitable job suggested by the Job Centre. See Webbo's post no. 1252 re. his wife being banned from applying for 6 months because she said she'd travel 10 miles to work, unaware that the acceptable response was 15 miles...

 

If my nephew (still sanctioned now and wasting time fighting the Job Centre, when he just wants to find work) didn't have my elderly parents to provide some cash, he'd have been evicted, sleeping on people's sofas and eating from food banks. If my mate hadn't got his MP to challenge the way he was stitched up, he'd have been evicted, too. Webbo's wife clearly only found work through her own endeavours/contacts; the Job Centre stitched her up. 

 

You don't even need to apply for jobs every week to get JSA.

 

I was on it for 6 months in early 2012, and basically I had to fill in a form to show 3 things I had done to look for work that week. Because I was living with my parents and had no money worries and I was enjoying all the free time I suddenly had, I didn't really intend to get a job. So on occasion I'd just scribble 3 made up things in the booklet in the morning.

1: Read Leicester mercury Wednesday job edition

2. Searched jobsite.co.uk

3. Dropped CV in to *insert shop here*

 

Jobs a goodun. I could only stand feeling like a parasite for so long though, the guilt got to me eventually

Those 6 months were happy times though!

 

Sounds like requirements have been toughened up greatly since 2012.

 

Just post your full personal details, though, Denis. Someone will gladly pass them on to the benefit fraud people so that they can arrange for you to repay those 6 months of benefits that you thieved from the taxpayer, you fraudulent scumbag!   

[Rincewind]

I never even bought the Mercury. Did a few times but the kind of job I was looking for did not seem to be in. Anyway unskilled jobs were filled early on so you had to be quick.

[Merging Cultures]

People are sanctioned and have their benefits stopped on technicalities or stitch-ups.

 

See post no. 1226 re. my nephew being sanctioned because he'd been unable to log in to post job search info, even though he'd been applying for jobs and had taken printed evidence to the Job Centre.

 

See post no. 1246 re. my mate who was sanctioned despite applying for other jobs, because he didn't apply for a completely unsuitable job suggested by the Job Centre.

 

See Webbo's post no. 1252 re. his wife being banned from applying for 6 months because she said she'd travel 10 miles to work, unaware that the acceptable response was 15 miles...

 

I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way, but surely some of this comes down to taken responsibility for their own actions? (except being 'stitched up' of course).

 

Not being able to log-on... did he contact the Job Centre immediately and tell them he was having problems, or email to get a new password/log-in whatever? (I am sure it isn't that easy, but I've used the I can't log on excuse to avoid conference calls and not reply to emails). It seems silly to me that they wouldn't take printed evidence. I am glad it is getting sorted thanks to the MP. 

 

Why not apply for the unsuitable job if that is the Job Centre requirements? It is a pain, but we have to play by the rules.

 

The 10 miles/15 miles issue is quite ridiculous, especially if Webbo has children.

 

As we all know, to keep our jobs "we have to do what we have to do", sometimes that means doing ridiculous things that we disagree with just to get paid.

[Rincewind]

Some people cannot use the internet for one reason or another (age, mental ability) and a lot of jobs require internet applications. There should be give and take and a little understanding. Once a warning the next time maybe a sanction but a given time so the person can prepare.

[Captain...]

I know a few people on the sick who do cash in hand work....5 days a week.

The argument that just because someone has been signed off sick that they are not fit to work would be laughable if they werent bringing in far more money than me, with a fair chunk at my expense.

It iscurrently far far too easy to be signed off sick.

 

Shop 'em, they are much worse than White Dee or Fungi, they are actually stealing from the tax payers, collecting benefits and not paying tax despite still working and earning a fair amount.

 

Easy enough for me to say, I don't know them, but they are criminals and stealing your money.

[Alf Bentley]

I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way, but surely some of this comes down to taken responsibility for their own actions? (except being 'stitched up' of course).

 

Not being able to log-on... did he contact the Job Centre immediately and tell them he was having problems, or email to get a new password/log-in whatever? (I am sure it isn't that easy, but I've used the I can't log on excuse to avoid conference calls and not reply to emails). It seems silly to me that they wouldn't take printed evidence. I am glad it is getting sorted thanks to the MP. 

 

Why not apply for the unsuitable job if that is the Job Centre requirements? It is a pain, but we have to play by the rules.

 

The 10 miles/15 miles issue is quite ridiculous, especially if Webbo has children.

 

As we all know, to keep our jobs "we have to do what we have to do", sometimes that means doing ridiculous things that we disagree with just to get paid.

 

I agree with most of what you've said, including the last sentence. However...

 

I don't know whose fault my nephew's login problem was or whether he tried to phone/email the Job Centre. What he did do was go there in person to sort out the login problem (sorted) and to provide printed evidence of his job search. He was assured that this was adequate and would be forwarded to the benefits section. This didn't happen. Instead, his benefits were stopped immediately and he had to appeal. It took several weeks to get a reply to the appeal - which was merely a letter demanding extra information. Since Christmas, his only income has been an emergency benefit payment and handouts from my parents. He's also had to spend time dealing with all this, which would have been better spent searching for a job - which he really wants.

 

It was my mate who was rescued by his MP. He wasn't "required" to apply for the programming job, it was merely suggested by the Job Centre. As he only has basic IT skills (ECDL, I think) but no programming experience, he rightly took this as a stupid suggestion and applied for other, more suitable jobs instead.

 

For different reasons (youth and unworldly personality), both were easy targets in a Job Centre culture where employees are given numerical targets of people to get "off the books" by any means. Meanwhile, serious benefit fraudsters are not targeted adequately - and people like Dennis Nedry go on forums gloating about the benefit fraud that they got away with and giving genuine jobseekers a bad name. The whole thing makes me sick!

 

Try spending a bit of time Googling "benefits stopped" with "figures", "targets" or "sanctions" and have a browse....