Jobseekers made to carry out bogus psychometric tests. Unemployed people are told they risk losing benefits if they fail to carry out meaningless questionnaire

(70 Posts)
vivizone Tue 30-Apr-13 13:04:12

www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/apr/30/jobseekers-bogus-psychometric-tests-unemployed

AIBU to think this is just not on?

From the article, I am surprised to find that a single mother is only entitled £71 PW. Where is the hundreds and hundreds of pounds per week we are told unemployed people get?

No matter what your stance is on benefits, do you ever worry that you/your family could one day face the benefit system? redundancy, illness, even death of a loved one can change your life in that one split moment. Why do people not want to protect the unemployed?! there are rogues in every part of society - why are the poor being regulated so much whilst others get away scot-free? big companies not paying tax, rich people hiding their assets. Why this heavy handed systematic attack on the poor?

What if your children couldn't get jobs - would you want them tarred with the same brush as benefit claimants - workshy/make them suffer attitude? It’s very easy to turn up your nose when you have things going well for you but you could lose all that you have tomorrow.

I work in quite a secure organisation but feel so desperately sad with is happening. Every single person I know who is on benefits are decent people. Being prosecuted by every angle of society. Makes me feel sick and ashamed.
And if the benefit system does need to be reviewed, it can be done without treating people on benefits like scum. It’s just not on.

Its disgusting that DC has basically created some nonsense department, headed by someone being paid £100,000 per year to issue questionnaires that mean nothing.

Claimants of JSA are people not just beings that deserve to be demeaned and pushed into corners.

PatPig Tue 30-Apr-13 17:05:06

I fill in lots of meaningless questionnaires. I don't go raging to the Guardian though.

ParsingFancy Tue 30-Apr-13 17:16:33

From the article: The DWP letter said the test was "scientifically shown to find people's strengths" and instructed her that along with searching for work she must complete the online test within three days. "Failure to comply with this direction may result in loss of benefit," it added.

But when questioned, the DWP didn't deny the "test" was fake.

And we're paying for this shit?

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 30-Apr-13 17:20:20

These are personal apparently phycological based tests that's a bit different than something based on your actual work.

They serve no purpose at all not even a pretend one they create no info for anyone,no stats no evidence not one thing that could even loosely justify doing it.

Pat

If you were told your only source of income was dependent on meaningless questionnaires, I am sure you would feel differently.

PatPig Tue 30-Apr-13 17:44:58

Eh? If I refused to fill in a meaningless questionnaire at work, I would be sacked. No income then.

And that is acceptable to you?

I would be looking for a new job.

NC78 Tue 30-Apr-13 17:48:34

They are a waste of time and money.

They will not help anyone get a job.

They will probably be used as an excuse to sanction some vulnerable jobseeker with learning disabilities who struggles to read or use a computer.

This is wrong.

IneedAsockamnesty Tue 30-Apr-13 17:50:38

Pat I'm guessing your employer pays you either the NMW or more?

FasterStronger Tue 30-Apr-13 17:50:48

I fill out extremely dull questionnaires for an important supplier.

the test does help you find your strengths - just not how people are expecting it - its nudge theory.

ParsingFancy Tue 30-Apr-13 17:52:39

Actually, I want the job of the person who thought this one up. I can promise to do exactly as much job creation, for half their salary.

Mind you, not sure I'd fit in.

What sort of person would you have to be to say, "Hmm, a global financial crisis starting with US mortgages has caused a worldwide recession. UK private employers have been laying people off, and we're making idealogical cuts to public sector employment. So lots of people are unemployed.

"What shall we do about that?

"I know, let's fuck with unemployed people's heads. That'll cause economic growth."

doubleshotespresso Tue 30-Apr-13 21:22:07

Patpig the figures in your link prove my point. Where do you know of in Inner south east London that costs £86 per week to rent?

rainbowslollipops Wed 01-May-13 07:54:50

Not including child benefit and help with rent it is £71 a week for single parents on jsa. used to be £142 a fortnight.

cory Wed 01-May-13 08:43:01

If I were unemployed, I would no doubt jump through hoops to do whatever I was told. As a worker I sometimes fill in questionnaires that seem pretty meaningless to me.

But as a taxpayer, I am BLOODY OUTRAGED that the DWP are wasting my money on compiling bogus questionnaires when they could be doing something to genuinely help people looking for work.

If the present government has money to throw around, let them spend it on something sensible.

"I have not created a thing of beauty in the last year", indeed. Well, if you were David Cameron, you'd certainly have to tick the box that says "this is very much like me". angry

AudrinaAdare Wed 01-May-13 08:49:25

cory grin

I'd be afraid of being sanctioned if I admitted I went out of my way to visit museums on tax-payers time and wasn't filling in applications eighteen hours a day.

andubelievedthat Wed 01-May-13 09:26:05

my own brother has been diagnosed with several high end illnesses , so he is on whatever benefit it is for same but gets £71 p.w. and rent paid , he can allow himself £1 electricity use per day,no more .I do his clothes washing that's £1 per day ,yup, people on benefits live life high on the hog ! oh and having had a stroke and having osteo atheritis and pre cancerous blood cell situation,which is being medically monitored, means he is indeed FIT FOR WORK ,according to ATOS , so ,its JSA for him and I bet employers will be queing up to take him on ,but should he have another stroke and end up paralysed ,? I do wonder how much the country will have to pay out re his care then? you really could not make this up ! (sorry re crap spelling)

ParsingFancy Wed 01-May-13 09:43:05

Oh look, now the geniuses behind this are to be made profit-making.

You know, people are living high on the hog on the welfare state. Just not the recipients of benefits.

Emma "A4E" Harrison does quite nicely.

G4S too, apparently. Remember, the security company who failed to deliver for the Olympics. They're now in the Work Programme business - not to employ people in their security work, but to cream off govt money and then subcontract "getting them into work" to third parties.

LondonMan Wed 01-May-13 09:51:32

Where do you know of in Inner south east London that costs £86 per week to rent?

That is the rate for sharing. The rate in my area (inner East London) is slightly higher, £92. A flat like mine (three bedroom two bathrooms) is shared by four woman, but the rental value is about £450 a week, which would be £113 each. However this is a flat worth over 600K probably occupied by young professionals working in the City, I'd assume someone on benefits would be in cheaper properties with lower rents, so £92 seems plausible to me. I may be wrong though.

doubleshotespresso Wed 01-May-13 10:02:59

Londonman yes you are right. So if you, like my friend have been recently laid off, never having claimed JSA before, and sharing a 2 bed flat, then you are only entitled to £86 per week, when your rent is £625 a month, and you thus find yourself in s **t street within a month. He gets the princely sum of £9.18 a week council tax benefit, meaning he still has to pay £80 per month for his share. This all came to light when he broke down on me over coffee and told me he coildnt see a way out, vannot afford to ove and is getting deeper and deeper into trouble, whilst chasing work.

My friend has gone from earning a comfortable £45k to now borrowing from friends until he can get back into work. All because he and his flatmate share a kitchen and a bathroom.

He is walking everywhere, had had mobile cut off due to on payments and eats toast most days.... Oh and he also owes his flatmate for utilities since Christmas.

We are all in this together?

doubleshotespresso Wed 01-May-13 10:04:46

Apologies for the typos!
"Couldn't see a way out, cannot afford to move (where on that money anyway?)

doubleshotespresso Wed 01-May-13 10:06:26

And he is now expected to fill in a form detailing whether or not he has made something beautiful in the last year?

MeNeedShoes Wed 01-May-13 10:26:35

I shall contribute to this thread against my better judgement then hide it because I know the inevitable descent into madness that will surely follow.

The problem is not people on short term benefits e.g. working person made redundant. They are treated shoddily by the benefits system and get next to nothing. E.g. sister and husband both made unemployed, had young baby to look after and a mortgage. They received the princely sum of £120 a week and relied on family to keep them in the house until they were able to get new jobs.

The problem is the 'benefits as a lifestyle choice' brigade. Don't tell me they don't exist. They do. I used to work with some of them (they were service users) and they were better off than me and my working colleagues. They had better housing and a higher disposable income than the people working there to help them on minimum wage. That's just a fact. Funnily enough the less in need they were, the more entitled they felt. It rankled at the time as I was living back at home with my parents because I couldn't afford housing on my FT wage.

However someone will be along to tell me I'm a liar in a matter of moments because the truth (on both sides of this debate) seems to send MNers screaming mad. So I'll bow out gracefully and wish that just once there could be an actual discussion about the benefits system and what needs changed without hurting the people who need them the most.

Ofcourse the lifestyle choice brigade exists.

The issue is that they exist in such a small number that to change the system because of them is making life unbearable for the majority of claimants, who actually need the money to survive.

LessMissAbs Wed 01-May-13 10:39:17

*From the article: The DWP letter said the test was "scientifically shown to find people's strengths" and instructed her that along with searching for work she must complete the online test within three days. "Failure to comply with this direction may result in loss of benefit," it added.

But when questioned, the DWP didn't deny the "test" was fake*

Perhaps the "test" is whether the person fills in the questionnaire or not!

ParsingFancy Wed 01-May-13 10:46:02

What wannabedomesticgoddess said.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now