Work for unemployment benefit

[kayevcee]

EDIT: Government consultation on the matter:
www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/noonewrittenoff/

The BBC perspective
The Herald perspective
The Scotsman and unions' perspective

What does the Hub think about this? When I was unemployed I think I would have welcomed the opportunity to go out and do something for the community and it would have been an extra bonus if some contributions were made to my travel expenses. However, something smells about the private companies being handed cash in order to take these unemployed folk on for short periods. Being paid to have someone work for you reminds me of the plot of a dystopian alternate future episode of Duck Tales.

On a note that shows that I don't get all my political opinions from Disney cartoons, I'm very concerned about the rumblings about incapacity benefit. The '2 million fraudulent claimants' figure just doesn't ring true to me and reminds me of the figure released last year that more money was spent combatting benefit fraud than was actually recouped by identifying fraudsters.

It's mentioned in one article that in the upcoming Glasgow East by-election, 11000 constituents are estimated to be receiving incapacity benefit. I make that about 10% of the population. Given that average life expectancies in parts of east Glasgow are about 20 years below the national average I imagine the vast majority of claimants to be legitimate. Will Labour pay for this impressive bout of bad timing? Do we still care?

-Nick

[Philip Ayres]

As someone recieving Incapacity Benefit cos he's too ill to work I find stories like this very worrying. It boils down to trying to take money away from people....

[Grand Moff Muffin]

My instincts are in favour of it in principle. If people can't work in return for the money they need to live, they shouldn't have to. If they can, they should have to. I don't see how that can be argued against, in principle.

The only objections I can see come with implementing it fairly in practice.

It's not just a question of doing it to make it fairer on workers whose taxes fund the dole, it's also to the benefit of the person being asked to work. Just as physical exercise is good for the body, working in return for what you get is good for people psychologically. Even if it's just a few hours a week of computer working from home.

But again, it's got to be implemented justly.

Martin

[Deleted]

When I was on the dole I was sent on a number of training courses, college courses and work experience placements to earn what I was receiving. I happily accepted them because I wanted to show them that I was willing to work and not one of those workshy individuals who only sign on because they they can't be arsed to get out of the bed in the morning.

Also, if someone can't work because of some permanent injury or even a disability they shouldn't have to prove that they can't work. It's probably a struggle for them to get up to the dole office as it is (assuming that such people have to sign on to receive Incapacity Benefit or whatever its called these days) so having to justify their injury or illness isn't right.

[legios]

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand from the perspective of "Folk who aren't willing to work shouldn't get something for nothing all their lives" it at first sounds like it makes sense. But on the other hand there are those people who the system has encapsulated in the poverty trap. Folk who would like to go out to work, but when they do so they lose entitlement to Housing Benefit and find they are unable to get a job that pays well enough for them to afford the £300 - £400 a month they would need to find in rent. In my current profession I have seen a great many people who would like to work, but aren't able to do so and still afford to feed and house their children. For people like that it is in some ways not unlike a government draft. (I'm not saying that there aren't people who stay on benefits because they don't want to work, because I have known some of these folk. But they do not make up the whole of the body of the long-term unemployed by any means.).

I also question how people who are on the full-time, five days a week part of this proposal (those who have been unemployed more than two years) are going to have much time available for job-hunting.

Governments find it easier to throw out punitive measures than to admit that there are fundamental flaws in the system that make it less than entirely fit for purpose.

(As an aside, does anyone else find this vaguely similar to the logic behind "Poor Relief" in the days of the workhouses?)

Also, from the descriptions I have read of the things that folk will be doing on this scheme - picking up litter, removing graffiti - it seems to be basically the same as the sorts of things being given to people with community service orders. So couldn't it be seen as punishing people for the crime of being unemployed?

Karl

[The Doctor]

I spent five years working with people on benefits, many on incapacity benefit. Not one individual wanted to be on it: they'd rather be working. All had complex mental health issues though and required complicated care. Not the kind of problems a 'one size fits all' approach will work on, which is what these measures appear to be.

Oh, and the most common condition for incapacity benefit claimants? Mental ill-health.

Out of interest, am I the only person who has never once in his life woke up and thought: 'My taxes are paying for folk who aren't working: Get them!'? If we are a caring society, we should provide for people unable to work for reasons beyond their control. We've got more than enough money to pay for it.

Lastly for now, the word 'them' is often used in debates of this type. It's worth remembering that anyone of us can have debilitating ill-health and be unable to work at any time. There is no 'them', just 'us'.

-Ralph

[legios]

Jul 22, 2008 20:21:51 GMT The Doctor said:

Out of interest, am I the only person who has never once in his life woke up and thought: 'My taxes are paying for folk who aren't working: Get them!'?

Nope, never really affected me either. I sometimes wake up and think "The government are spending my taxes on weapons of mass destruction, aren't they always telling me those are evil?" though. But I've never seriously had any thoughts along the lines of "getting" the unemployed.

Lastly for now, the word 'them' is often used in debates of this type. It's worth remembering that anyone of us can have debilitating ill-health and be unable to work at any time. There is no 'them', just 'us'.
-Ralph

I'd agree with that too on reflection. "Them" is one of the scariest concepts in the English language - historically it has oft been used to define people as "them", i.e "not us", and therefore not deserving of the same level of consideration and compassion. (C.F Stanley Milgrom's work and resulting research into "in group" and "out group" dynamics). To be honest I wish I had framed my post differently, but I shan't go back for a root-and-branch rewrite at this stage.

I have known several people who have lost their jobs through mental or physical health, and in no case did they see benefits as a solution or a long-term aim. (In one case being on benefits merely exacerbated the problem).

Karl

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Ralph, you've said that all the people you worked with had complex mental health issues, so you were clearly involved with one particular class of unemployed people. I can't tell from the three links at the top of the page whether the new proposals will include a fair diagnosis of incapacities and make allowances for them, but I'm assuming for the purposes of this thread that they will, since if they don't there isn't really anything to discuss here - we'd all be in agreement that a system in which incapacities were not fairly diagnosed was a bad thing.

But healthy unemployed people who are not spending five days a week full-time seeking for employment (and it's unlikely that after 1 or 2 years on the dole a person is occupied 9-5 with job-seeking), but receiving money from the state, should be required to give that free time to do jobs that need doing. If I couldn't get a job that interested me, despite my trying hard, it would be only fair for society to expect me to do a boring job not of my choosing in order to receive money from the state to keep my house and quality of life - even if that job is street-sweeping or painting over graffiti, I shouldn't have an opt-out to do nothing because I consider the job dull or demeaning. Those of us who enjoy our work are lucky, but it's not ours by right.

So I stand by my view that people who can work, should be required to do work in order to receive money, if there is work that they can usefully do.

Provided it is implemented fairly and justly, and no-one tries to force work on those who (for mental or physical reasons) are incapable of doing it.

Martin

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Jul 22, 2008 20:33:51 GMT legios said:

Nope, never really affected me either. I sometimes wake up and think "The government are spending my taxes on weapons of mass destruction, aren't they always telling me those are evil?" though. But I've never seriously had any thoughts along the lines of "getting" the unemployed.

Likewise. But if a certain amount of tax-payers' money is going towards unemployment benefits, and some of those receiving that money could find work if they were willing to be less picky, then those people are taking money that could be going to those who, for physical or mental reasons, really can't work, and need extra support.

Of course, weapons of mass destruction are also taking money that could be going to those people.

There's only one way to decide for yourself where your taxes end up: by giving money to charity and ticking the gift aid box.

Martin

[The Doctor]

Jul 22, 2008 20:47:41 GMT Grand Moff Muffin said:

Ralph, you've said that all the people you worked with had complex mental health issues, so you were clearly involved with one particular class of unemployed people. I can't tell from the three links at the top of the page whether the new proposals will include a fair diagnosis of incapacities and make allowances for them, but I'm assuming for the purposes of this thread that they will,

They don't. I went into that in excruciating detail on a previous version of the Hub, but the long and short of it is that the way incapacity benefits are judged is clearly inhumane and I've seen the process have a devastating effect on individual's health. I cannot elaborate further for confidentiality reasons.

Imagine this: you have been diagnosed with a serious illness and the evidence is in your medical files. Your GP and/or other health professionals involved in your care know you best. So when it's time to check your continued elligibility for incapacity benefit (which can happen randomly at any time), this is what happens:

-You are summoned to a place you don't know by a letter that is difficult to understand
-You have no choice in this
-Your GP/Other health professionals have no say in this process
-You are seen by a doctor who does not know you and usually knows sod all about you either
-You are being assessed from the minute you walk in until the minute you walk out. This is never explained to you. Tricks of the trade include comments being noted on what hand you use when reaching for tissues to dry your tears if upset
-The doctor asks you questions from a computer display
-You are not told the results of the meeting on that day
-The doctor will tell you that the decision is "not up to them" - this is a lie. It is they who write a report.
-You then get to wait for an undetermined number of days waiting for the letter telling you if you are allowed to keep your benefit which you should be entitled to anyway what with you still being under medical care from GP, etc, based solely on the doctor's report not information from your GP/Other health professionals. This letter is extremely hard to interpret (honestly, you have no idea)

...and that's not even going into the appeals process. If you didn't have mental health issues before, you will after.

I supported many indviduals through that process. In all honesty, even though I was not the person directly affected it frightened the shit out of me every single time. I wish the public could see how this process is carried out. It's disgusting. It strips away vulnerable people's humanity and assumes they are liars. You try calming someone down for literally weeks after one of these things. It's very upsetting.

The waiting rooms can have people in them shooting up or pissed out of their minds. There are no facilicties to provide for the screaming children nor respite from the muzak from the speakers. The chairs are hard. I've seen people barely able to walk hauled into these things.

In other news, the company which handles looking at incapacity benefits is private and is notorious for the shoddy way people are treated. Their primary aim has been stated specifically by them in internal reports to get people off incapacity anyway they can. There are quotas.

What should happen is that people are assessed once and if further information is required their GP, etc should be contacted. Why cause ill people distress that is not required?

On a tangent, I am so fucking scared of the way the benefits system treats people that I'll be waiting until I'm completely pennyless during my current spell of unemployment before I sign on (unless I get a job first) even though I'm elligible for income support right now.

-Ralph

[Philip Ayres]

Ralph speaks the truth. I'm scared of the Incapacity benefits forms !

Mind you what I have reacts to stress. Get me in for an interview/assessment and they'll see me at my worst.

[karla]

ah don't worry payres, i'm sure you'll get your money

but I had no idea this included the people too sick to work, I thought it was just for the people who chose not to work. As they said something about being sent to jail for 6 months I think if they refuse to work still....which I don't see as helping, just to get them out of the way you know, keep their bloody stats good.
Its not going to be easy finding a job from now on though, unless you have a degree in something spectacular, so many places aren't recruting they just don't have the money anymore.

And just the image of someone in wheelchair helping to clean up the streets is hard to conjure up but also comical....i'll stop now!

[Bogatan]

I wont pretend Im in anyway affected by all this as many, but Im having my own mini nightmare at the moment. Without trying to go in to too much detail.

Im currently on job seekers allowance, but truthfully Im pretty much incapable of going for a job. I have a problem with my shoulder swelling caused by repetitive movements and stretching cause's it to seize. Until june last year I worked 30 odd hours a week at Asda stacking shelves. That was the cause of it and eventually I had to go on sick for 3 months at which point Asda's view became come back to work or get sacked. This despite me still being assessed and treated for the condition, hell 3 months is barely long enough to get seen by a consultant and its at least another month before you'll get the needed scans.

Anyway I got lucky. I switched to seasonal at Asda and stumbled into another job that I loved for the next 8 months, going back to Asda for Christmas and Easter.

During that time I continued being treated for my shoulder and for a similar but much older and generally less painful problem with my foot. At the beginning of the year the treatment for my toe went wrong, somewhere between unfortunate reaction and utter indifference by my consultant. End result was that by the time I was finishing at Escape and should have been going back to Asda for the summer period of my contract I was often in agony when I had to walk.

In between the two jobs I signed on, I could barely manage shelf stacking short term (besides no one was going to take me on for the two months before I was due back at Asda) and VFX work was a waste land thanks to the writers strike. So there was no real hope of work, but if I could find something in the time Id have taken it.

Since then Asda have refused to let me work as I was obliged to inform them about my conditions and they didnt want to risk it and Im due for an operation that will make me completely unable to work for a couple of months.

So basically for three months Ive been stuck earning or being given £60 a week, living with my parent and stuck in a weird limbo.

Then today I discovered I was on Contribution based JSA which means I dont get any help with medical bills. Thats bad timing as basically Im being prescribed lots of drugs while other options are being waited for. A large filling came out requiring a load of dentist appointments and I had to take an eye exam as I was worried about eye strain since working at Escape. On two occasions Ive been asked if I was on JSA and said yes and shown my book and thus not paid for treatment. Today I found out that been on Contribution based JSA I could be fined for those.

Effectively Im being punished for finding a well paid job for 8 months. Because of that job I get an extra £5 or so a week over Income based JSA but paying for just one prescription a week means I lose out and unfortunately for me those cost seem to be going up.

Even after I go into hospital and during my recovery I wont be better off. My National Insurance contributions mean I will be on incapacity benefit Im told so still wont get help with medical costs.

Er getting slightly back on to topic

In the mean time my job centre makes absolutely no effort to make me or anyone else by the looks of it get a job. If Im sat down with my "advisor" for more than a minute it only because hes being inspected or Ive asked him something. Now frankly at the start I thought Id be back at Asda in a few weeks so wasnt fussed and at this point I dont care as the operation is only a few weeks away and then I cant work till October at least but the previous time I was on JSA and was looking for work this attitude pissed me off no end.

At present it is so easy to not look for a job and with enough benefits people dont need to. So if the government want to do something about it, thats good. But if the current scheme is little more than forcing people to do community service in the hope they'll get sick of it and look for a real job Im not convinced it will work.

At the same time Im stuck. Even after the op I'll be best off avoiding shelf stacking/bar work which is fine with me but at least that was an income (and forms about 90% of my work experience). To get a job as an animator/vfx artist I need more training, but I wont be given any support while Im training because Im not actively looking for a job. Instead Ive got to find a few thousand plus living expenses (in London) to take the course while receiving no help what so ever. For lots of people thats not an option Yet after 6 months unemployed they'll start pushing me to go on courses. And even if I could do the course I want in this way I wont be able to because when I go into hospital I will be taken off JSA and if I go back on afterwards it will be a fresh start and Id have to wait another 6 months.

The whole system is just seems so horribly impersonal. The government want me back at work as soon as possible and dont really care what job it is. My current employers wont even let me back to work so who else is going to in that field. The only field that comes up in job searches in my area. But will they support me for the 12 weeks it will take to build upon my existing experience to help me get a job with an actual future. One where I will earn enough to save money, start a pension, pay taxes, get my own place and one thats less likely to cause occurrences of my shoulder injury which would require more treatment by the NHS. No because the system is one size fits all.

One way or another Im likely to be receiving benefits between now and December when hopefully Asda at least will re-employ me for a few weeks. Until then a job is unlikely so why not let me do a course designed to get me a job.

Arrrgh!

Apologises for my largely off topic rant, Ive just had a bad day or the culmination of a bad 3 months, or year Im not sure which.

Andy

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Many thanks to both Ralph and Andy for more detail. Having read the highly selective media write-ups, and then your inside perspectives, I think I would really need to read the actual proposals to judge them fairly against the existing system you describe.

Perhaps the consultation itself should have been the first link at the top of the thread:

www.dwp.gov.uk/welfarereform/noonewrittenoff/

I very strongly advise Ralph, Andy and Phil and anyone with knowledge of this subject area to write up your comments and respond to the consultation as requested on the above page. Based on my own experience (working for Govt.), if your points are intelligently presented (not rambling, not ranting), constructive and focussed on the specifics of the proposals, they will be considered seriously, may provoke improvements (however minor), and even if they don't change what happens on this occasion they will improve the background that officials have to work with in future.

Voting at elections can change your MP, but responding to consultations helps inform, educate and influence the non-party-political officials who work on the detail and successful implementation of policies. I appreciate intelligent consultation feedback in my subject area, from people who have knowledge and perspectives that I lack, and I'm sure DWP are the same. At the end of the day, what they receive in response to the publication of a consultation will form their view of the level of public interest and approval/disapproval of the proposals in question.

Martin

[The Doctor]

Yeah, I'll have a look at the consultation. I wrote part of my old workplace's response to the previous reforms so I know the language required.

Incidentally, a little known fact (and not advertised) is that appeals tribunals for people taken off any kind of benefits (inc incapacity) are open to the public, by law. Very few people know this. I was working in the field for four years before I found out by accident. What you do is phone up the local assessment centre and ask if you can sit in on some appeals. You can sit in on one, a few few or for a whole day. The tribunal board and appelant still have to give permission per appeal. If they say it's ok, you're in on the condition you sit in the corner and keep your mouth shut. You may be asked the reason for your interest in the process by the tribunal.

I advise everyone to spend a day doing it some time. It's a real eye-opener. While you will see some good practice (some tribunals are humane enough to bring the thing to a halt before it starts upon looking at the evidence beforehand), you will quickly gain a thorough awareness of the highly dehumanising, monstrous and distressing nature of the system.

Before you go, make sure you've scouted out the nearest pub as you will need a stiff drink afterwards.

-Ralph

[kayevcee]

Thanks for the link, Martin. I'd have added it myself when I started the thread but I was ignorant of it, as I find I am of so many things when a HYS thread gets going. Many thanks for the contributions, all.

-Nick

[Philip Ayres]

Jul 21, 2008 13:00:24 GMT kayevcee said:

It's mentioned in one article that in the upcoming Glasgow East by-election, 11000 constituents are estimated to be receiving incapacity benefit. I make that about 10% of the population. Given that average life expectancies in parts of east Glasgow are about 20 years below the national average I imagine the vast majority of claimants to be legitimate. Will Labour pay for this impressive bout of bad timing? Do we still care?

-Nick

SNP win

[The Doctor]

Labour had it coming so I'm delighted to see them get the smackdown. I am no fan at all of the SNP but it's the wake-up call New Labour needed. I don't imagine the incapacity changes helped them much this week, what with the number of claimants in Glasgow East.

-Ralph

[dyrl]

An interesting read - particularly Ralph's comments.

All in all; no half decent person would disagree to the idea of the ill, the mentally ill, the incapacitated getting care.

The problem - in my view- is that when a faceless government system is providing that "care," then individuals become just numbers - and because no one knows anyone else - it's all guess work - and everyone is assumed to be a liar from the get go.

To my mind - the best idea would be to de-centralize and democratize the system - let local communities have more power and autonomy to tax and spend and have the central government stop taxing and spending.

Granted - some might argue that this would only "divide" the country into "richer" and "poorer" communities - but isn't that what we have now anyways? And obviously bringing help to those who need it is a difficult process.

The presumption of many people working the system for benefits who don't really need it is a sad by product of this faceless system - if communities were tighter and people open to getting to know their neighbors and doing things together rather than relegating that power to far away central governments - I think lots of these problems would get solved better.

And I'm not surprised folks are scared of filling out forms and doctor's appointments and the like: government treats everyone EQUALLY - that means - you are no more or less special, independent of your health or life history. You are a number - nothing more.

The only folks who get special treatment are the family and friends of those closest to power.

pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

As usually seems to be the case, I disagree completely with Pete, at least as far as applying your views and suggestions to the UK is concerned. There is no appetite whatsoever for individual local authorities being allowed to offer health and social care to different standards, based on the level of council tax their local residents are able to pay towards it.

As it stands, there is public outcry against any service which seems to be a "postcode lottery" - where you get a different level of service depending on where you live - and it would be seen as morally unacceptable for poor regions of the UK to have far less money per person spent on health and social services than rich areas, simply because the rich people can afford to pay more taxes.

Obama (who would win the US Presidential elections by a landslide if it was decided by western Europeans) put it nicely when he said:

It's not because John McCain doesn't care. It's because John McCain doesn't get it.

For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy - give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else. In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society, but what it really means is - you're on your own. Out of work? Tough luck. No health care? The market will fix it. Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps - even if you don't have boots. You're on your own.

Well it's time for them to own their failure. It's time for us to change America.

But I'm somehow guessing your sympathies are with the Republicans, Pete.

Martin

[dyrl]

Yeah - my sympathies are with the Republicans...circa 1920... I liked people like Calvin Coolidge who left people alone at home and didn't feel like sending them to fight in massive horrible wars overseas either.

Sadly, there are no Republicans like that on the ticket.

As for the Democrats - I don't trust them. The Democrats went along with Bush regarding the war on terror and the patriot act, and even AFTER they won a majority in Congress in 2006 SPECIFICALLY on the war issue - they did nothing to stop the wars at all.

I liked Obama when he first started running and cheered him on against Clinton, but to hear him now is a downer. He keeps talking about how the "real" war is in Afghanistan and how he'd send more soldiers to Afghanistan. And he just nominated Joe "let's make war on Russia" Biden for the VP slot - a terrible pick.

I would be voting for Obama this ellection if I were sure that he would actually end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - that is, pull the soldiers out - but he keeps "talking tough."

Then again - George W promised a "humble foreign policy" in 2000, and criticized Clinton/Gore for bombing Serbia - looks like he was lying - just talking to dumb people like me to get us to vote for him...like his dad with "read my lips no new taxes"... So maybe Obama is just "talkign tough" so stupid Americans who believe that the US has to be bombing SOMEBODY will vote for him... maybe he's lying and when he's president he will bring the troops home.. maybe...

My candidate on the Republican side this election cycle was Ron Paul. On the Democrats side it was Obama and Kucinic (spelling?)... Paul lost - although I am happy that he got more votes than Rudy "kill foriegners and throw businessmen in jail" Giulliani (poetic justice, that). Obama got the nomination - which is better than Clinton getting it (imo) - but now that he keeps going on and on about "more troops in Afghanistan"... I just don't trust him... and Joe Biden is a horrible VP pick.

McCain - for all his faults- actually picked a lady who seems (imo) to be pretty cool.

Ideally - I wish it was Obama/Palin

Pete

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Aug 31, 2008 18:08:19 GMT dyrl said:

So maybe Obama is just "talkign tough" so stupid Americans who believe that the US has to be bombing SOMEBODY will vote for him... maybe he's lying and when he's president he will bring the troops home.. maybe...

That's my hope. I think some talking tough is obligatory for someone who might otherwise be accused of being not sufficiently patriotic or militarily assertive. And at least he is talking tough primarily with regard to the more just of America's two wars.

Sorry, we've gone off topic. The US Presidential election and foreign policy should be another thread. If anyone wants to go further on this subject, please start a new thread and copy these last couple of posts in to kick it off.

Otherwise... back to benefits.

Martin

[The Doctor]

Caveat: the following is, by it's nature, a biased account, so take it as you will.

(DWP: Department of Work and Pensions)

Well I've recently had to enter the unemployment benefits system. Should I be elligible for jobseeker's allowance (JSA), this is £60.50 a week, payable fortnightly. This will not go far, but fair enough. I've paid for it through national insurance contributions already anyway and I've got nothing so every penny helps. I would genuinely be more than happy to comply with any suggestions from the DWP, whether that be doing courses, voluntary work, etc as 6 months into unemployment I'm of the opinion that anything that might help me get a decently paid sustainable job would be extremely welcome, and have the added benefit of some mental stimulation and to fill some of my time meaningfully.

However, what happens is that when you sign up you are specifically told there is no help whatsover to get you back into employment until you have been in receipt of JSA for a period of 6 continuous months. All you have to do is turn up once a fortnight for five minutes to say you're looking for work. No evidence is requested. I've been turning up with reject letters, photocopies of forms, notes of where I'm looking, etc but nothing is asked for. The fortnightly visit should be a 'target' for getting things done so you can show you've done it, but no. My previous working experience had mostly been on the incapacity side of benefits where the DWP does everything it can to make people work! To find exactly the opposite on the unemployment side of the system is both baffling and a poor use of taxpayer's money. No wonder people are stuck in the system for the years! If you are disinclined to work there is no incentive to start doing so or if you lack the confidence/skills to know what to do, you are similarly stuck. I wonder if this has people on benefits longer than they need to be on them. I see JSA as a short-term financial aid - I don't want to claim for longer than is absolutely necessary and I have no problem whatsover 'working' for it while I'm on it.

I feel a better service would be a thorough assessment at point of entry into the DWP system of your previous work experience/qualifications and of how you are currently searching for work and how this could be refined to get you working as quick as possible presuming your health is good. There would then be a plan of action to get things rolling. Anything to give claimants a feeling of momentum would help - one of the odd things about being out of work is how the sense of passing time goes out the window (it honestly feels like I've been out of work for years) and the surprising degree to which confidence in general quickly erodes. I was all set to say 'yes' to any sugestions when I first signed on. Imagine my surprise when there was nothing. I do feel that people have a responsibility to help themselves (it's only me that will get myself a job, for example) but we all need help, no matter who we are or what our background is.

As it is, I've had to make contact with a voluntary agency for assistance. Bit of a shame I could not seek such help with the DWP.

-Ralph

[karla]

really? you took all that with you to get your JSA? lol I didn't take anything with me.
they weren't much help though, after a few months I lied saying I got a job in McDonalds when I didn't get any job, I just didn't want to go back to that depressing place.

[Bogatan]

I still think there has been a shift in behaviour when it comes to JSA in the last few years. When I first went on it while in London at eh beginning of 2005 there seemed a real effort to look for jobs, at least in comparison to the other two times I've been on it.

I posted in another thread that I hoped to stay on Incapacity in order to help me find a job. THe next day I got a letter telling me that my assessment I had recieved a massive 0/15 so was no longer on incapacity from the 8th December. I got the letter on the 10th of December which is wonderfully helpful as it will probably be into the new year by the time I receive money from JSA. Thankfully I dont need the money urgently but how on earth they expect some one relying on he fortnightly payments to cope especially at this time of year is beyond me.

Anyway I'm now at a loss. I know JSA will keep money coming in but I know it will be of no help what so ever in getting a job. Plus I still physically cant work. A short course I just completed proved that I would seriously struggle to do even an office job. THe simple act of sitting a a desk for more than a few hours causes my shoulder to cramp and all the old pre surgery pains to return. My jobcentre has had the same jobs for as long as I've been going and I cant do any of them.

Even Asda wont have me back for Christmas, which I would have risked for a few weeks just so I could have worked for a while. As it was I called to late so I'll have to wait for Easter. At that point I'll have been without a job for over a year and thats just depressing.

Andy

[The Doctor]

It's also worth noting that JSA is paid up to the day before a claimant starts work. Bear in mind when starting a job it's usually into your first month of employment before you are paid. What someone is supposed to live on (nevermind travelling costs and other work related expenses) in that interim period escapes me.

-Ralph