|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 28, 2012 20:31:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 2, 2012 18:15:47 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Oct 2, 2012 18:46:33 GMT
very disturbing
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 2, 2012 18:57:26 GMT
It's social engineering, pure and simple. And if it can be done for benefit claimants it can be done for those in paid work too. Bearing in mind that many benefit claimants already paid into the system when they were working and are really just getting some of that money back.
You take away control from people over what they spend their money on and you take away their ability to make decisions over large parts of their lives. Yes, some folk on benefits do spend their money on drink/drugs...but then so do many folk in paid work. And like it or not, but alcohol and tobacco are legal for adults so if folk have money and want to buy them they are perfectly entitled to do so, irregardless of their current employment status.
The changes in society's attitudes towards the welfare state frightens the life out of me. It's supposed to be a safety net for when we need help, not a way for folk to be punished when they lose their job or their health deteriorates. And continual welfare cuts makes my employment future look very very dim indeed. The line of work I am involved in relies on social/welfare funding. The very funding which is being cut quite savegely (especially since April) meaning that the jobs for which I am skilled and qualified for are vanishing beneath my feet. Right now, it's not even looking like I'll still have a job to turn up for come next April.
I've spent most of my working life supporting folk on benefits. Going by comments from folk and politicans, much of society probably thinks I'm scum.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Oct 2, 2012 19:00:10 GMT
Can't all these poor people just ask their rich daddies for money???
Pff some people are so lazy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy Turnbull on Oct 2, 2012 19:19:40 GMT
Despicable.
By that token I demand those who are in any public office give me a full accounting of what they to that justifies the wage they earn and account for all their hours and activities. They should also let me see what they spend the money they earn on.
Andy
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Oct 2, 2012 19:29:50 GMT
This is one of those ideas that I hear floated every so often, but fortunately it has always vanished into the ether before getting anywhere near. It is rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what our modern welfare state actually is. The modern welfare state is based on the idea that when you are working you pay into a pot which helps to fund support by the state to those in need - which you can then draw on yourself when you are in need. It is not charity in the sense that the old Poor Law system was - something handed out by the wealthy parts of society to make themselves feel good about themselves.
The idea of going over to a system which is effectively the state supplying predefined rations to "the indigent" is not just a step backwards, it is a giant leap back into the time of our ancestors.
The thing that elements of our current political establishment keep floating of "we should make people work for their benefits" is bad enough - with this it is clear that there is some support in the establishment for the old workhouse ethos of punishing people for being poor and without employment.
Let alone the increasing in stigmatisation, and self-stigmatisation that would result from this. It was hard enough to manage psychologically last time I was unemployed - how much more would it be if, no matter how frugal and careful I was I was never allowed the slightest luxury to lift my mood - only the most basic of survival necessities (because lets be clear, this is what this idea leads to if you follow it down the line that certain parts of the establishment and the public would take it).
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Oct 2, 2012 19:59:27 GMT
There is probably a very small group of people claiming benefits that have never paid in, never will pay in and dont want to pay that get everything handed to them. Frankly I wouldn't be unhappy to see restrictions placed on them, but despite tabloid stories I imagine it is a truly tiny percentage (I probably know a disproportionate number of them) and any restrictions would/will be the beginning of a slippery slope.
As for A4E they need to go away soon. I was stuck with them for over a year and to call the service a joke doesnt do it justice. I'd love to know how much money they got every time they saw me, because aside from one job application class (which I think I took three times because all the other classes they claim to offer I dont believe they do)and one job interview class that weren't totally pointless. The rest of the time all I remember is being put on a computer and told to do job searches.
They had to pay my bus fares every time I went in to do those job searches too. The frustrating thing was that for a long time what I needed was to take online courses I couldnt afford and weren't the sort of generic, rudimentary maths and english classes they offer. At some point soon someone needs to realise that many of the people currently unemployed aren't uneducated but do need specialised updated training to get back to work and allow more flexibility in the training offered. The money they paid for bus fares would have covered, I dont know, a quarter of one of them and Im sure the money A4E got for me in that time would have paid for the complete set I needed several times over, but thats really a separate issue from A4E being rubbish.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Oct 2, 2012 20:29:04 GMT
The thing that elements of our current political establishment keep floating of "we should make people work for their benefits" is bad enough - with this it is clear that there is some support in the establishment for the old workhouse ethos of punishing people for being poor and without employment. As someone who has been officially unemployed for far too long I find I dont mind the idea of being put to work in theory. I'm sure if it ever happens the reality will be just as bad as the current set up Job Strike Planes have for part time workers. You provided your hours worked and payslips and then months later they calculate how much they over paid you and deduct it from future payments. So if I earn £50 one week and receive £65 in Job Strike Planes allowance something like 2 months later I will be told I will only receive £15 one week. The problem is if you're living on a low income that £50 is probably going to disappear over those two months so by the week you receive £15 the £50 is gone and you have to live on the £15. I'm not saying they shouldnt deduct the money, but it shouldnt take nearly so long. Anything more than a month later is too long. One time it happened to me over 6 months later. Working part time for a long time and you have to be really careful to save the money. Work for 3 months and just when you finish is when JSA will begin deducting payments so you'll go for 12 weeks receiving little or no money from a job or JSA. Also there are little things that make it so difficult. Basic JSA is £65 so you have to work 11 hours before being in work is financially beneficial, but that doesnt account for expenses. I've worked 10-11 hour weeks and had to pay £10 in bus fares, meaning I'm financially worse off by working. All this really is no incentive for people to take part time work which is crazy, because even if still paying for stamp and NHS services it would save thousands per claimant every year. Sorry rant over. |
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Oct 2, 2012 20:47:59 GMT
I was reading this and getting so confused.
Job Strike Planes.
Then I understood.
Amazing.
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Oct 2, 2012 20:54:51 GMT
It is quite alright. The whole situation when it comes to benefit entitlements for part-time, seasonal or marginally-waged folks is a shambolic and convoluted mess a lot of the time.
One of the things that I have found in my job is that people who find themselves in seasonal work, work with variable hours or marginal employment often can find themselves in very difficult positions. Sometimes by the time people get themselves sorted out in terms of what has been overpaid them they find themselves out of work again - mostly through no fault of their own - having to make fresh claims and go through the whole extended rigmarole - living on little or nothing whilst this is sorted out because their employment hasn't paid enough for them to build up any meaningful buffer of savings to tide them over the extended period of actually getting claims up and running and in payment.
And you are quite right - overpayments can cause a lot of difficulties for people. One of the situations that sticks in my mind is that of Housing Benefit - there is a limit to how far back a claim can be amended if they have underpaid the claim (and said limit is getting shorter all the time). By contrast there is absolutely no limit to how far back they can go if they decide they have made an overpayment. In theory they could decide that they have overpaid the housing benefit of someone who is working part-time on a low income back to 2000, and pursue the reclamation of that benefit back that far.... Not sure whether that is balanced, fair or equitable.
(And for the record - as well as the fraudulent claims that you hear about in the media (which do indeed make up a very small percentage of the total Social Security budget) there is usually a similar amount of benefit that people should have been entitled to that hasn't been paid out for one reason or another - official error, people not being told about things that they were legally entitled to etc, etc. Which paints a slightly more complex picture than the usual tabloid journalism narrative).
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Oct 2, 2012 21:02:09 GMT
I was reading this and getting so confused. Job Strike Planes. Then I understood. Amazing. ;D Oh yeah. |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 3, 2012 7:16:04 GMT
Oh the tabloids have no clue. I've been working on a truly shocking benefits case since April. Confidentiality precludes me from even hinting as to the nature of it, but it's the kind of thing that really should be front-page news.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 4, 2012 7:04:37 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Oct 9, 2012 20:57:30 GMT
A colleague of mine at work found out about the proposals from Demos today as a result of them touting them around the Tory conference. Fair to say that she shared my sense of outrage about the whole thing.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by Marc Graham on Oct 10, 2012 6:32:43 GMT
Perhaps unsuprisingly welfare changes are going to have a larger proportional impact here in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps even more unsuprisingly reaction has been split amongst the usual lines here in Northern Ireland. One side insisting they have to be implemented, the other wanting to make changes.
Will be tough times ahead for many I fear.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 11, 2012 18:54:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Oct 11, 2012 20:38:51 GMT
Some thought-provoking stuff in there. I do think that there some mileage in changing the terrain of the debate.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 16, 2012 11:55:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Oct 30, 2012 8:00:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Nov 5, 2012 8:02:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Nov 5, 2012 13:00:13 GMT
That is very disturbing.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Nov 5, 2012 22:04:42 GMT
First heard about it last year. The various local authorities have been quite open about it.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Nov 7, 2012 20:41:21 GMT
Some stealth changes to JSA sanction changes came into force on 22nd October. It's my job to know these things and I only found out about them four days after they came in. One especially chilling edict is that if you refuse to take up a job an advisor tells you to you could lose your benefit entitlement for UP TO THREE YEARS.
Now consider that advisors at Job Centres are not actually trained at providing a service designed to help people back into work. They are not trained to know the local labour markets. They are not trained to audit client's skills/experiences. They provide no assistance with interview expenses or help with interview/work clothing costs or travel expenses for interviews or the initial period when folk start work and have a period when benefit stops instantly (often leaving a gap of a month or so before folk get paid from their job). Advisors do not provide a CV construction service nor assistance with job searching, application completion or interview skills. Their is no provision for in-work support once folk start a job.
And now these folk have the power to deprive people of income for up to three years WHEN THEY LACK THE SKILLS TO ACTUALLY HELP PEOPLE INTO WORK. It's like asking a 1st year medical student to carry out brain surgery.
Now, I have actually come across a few decent folk working in Job Centres over the years who do try and help but they are limited by poor resources and are not that highly paid anyway, which can cause problems with motivation, etc
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Nov 12, 2012 12:13:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Nov 26, 2012 22:30:03 GMT
BBC Website article: www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20431729"The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that 2% of total benefit expenditure for 2011/12 was overpaid due to fraud and error." Oh no! Less than 2% of folk on benefits are getting away with fraud! Let;s get the poor and disabled right now! (sarcasm) -Ralph |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Nov 27, 2012 13:47:37 GMT
Fraud and Error. I'll bet you most of that 2% is due to error as well
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Nov 27, 2012 19:00:15 GMT
BBC Website article: www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20431729"The Department for Work and Pensions estimates that 2% of total benefit expenditure for 2011/12 was overpaid due to fraud and error." Oh no! Less than 2% of folk on benefits are getting away with fraud! Let;s get the poor and disabled right now! (sarcasm) -Ralph Well, 2% of the budget is a pretty substantial amount, though I read that more as the onus being on DWP for not checking things properly rather than 'boo look at the people claiming falsely!" |
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Nov 27, 2012 19:31:00 GMT
I agree most of the 2% has to be error. At least in my experience the process is so slow and gets complicated really quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Nov 27, 2012 21:36:21 GMT
The thing that always strikes me is that this figure, this 2% of the budget is never properly broken down so that we can see what even smaller fraction of this figure is actually people taking advantage of the system, and what part of it is basically natural wastage and inefficiency.
Karl
|
|
