to wonder how it will work making unemployed people go to the jobcentre every day?(114 Posts)
From where I live, getting the bus to the jobcentre (in the nearest town) costs £5.50 return. So that would be £27.50 per week, or rather a large proportion of JSA. Its 12 miles (very hilly) each way, so I wouldn't have thought many long term unemployed people would be able to cycle it every day (most of the people out of work I know here aren't really in that good health).
Do you get a free bus pass if you're on JSA? All seems a bit mad, even by current standards . . .
No free bus passes, no. It'd be over 20 quid here too, or takes over an hour for a very fit person each way. Not been thought through really!
Maybe they'll open a costa inside so they can 'employ' the people on work fare to staff it?!
That was my first though too. Although from the report I heard on the radio the turning up at the job centre daily was one of three options, so presumably you could choose one of the others.
I can see the point of getting people to attend the job centre daily in order to get help to find a job, but are there actually lots of jobs around? As with the best will in the world you can't magic a job from thin air, no matter how many times you attend the jobcentre.
I wondered about this too. Bus fares are a huge expense, even for people earning a salary.
Maybe they'll open loads more job centres... so reducing the number of unemployed... thereby Cameron gets a didn't he do well badge.
(To clarify, I mean to make it so everyone has a job centre in walking distance....)
"Although from the report I heard on the radio the turning up at the job centre daily was one of three options"
The impression I got was that people would be divided into one of three groups, not that they could choose?
"Maybe they'll open loads more job centres... so reducing the number of unemployed... "
So long as they paid decent wages, it would probably work, that's the mad thing (though would make more sense to hire people at decent wages to build council houses or care for disabled/elderly people, obviously)
How does a daily trip to the jobcentre help you find a job?
You need an appointment to see an advisor for a start.... They don't just wander about handing job application forms out!
Also, the jobcentre doesn't actually have jobs there for you to apply for
Its a 2hr 20 min round trip on the bus to our nearest job centre because of all the village stops so lets hope the Government have thought of the childcare costs incurred by those attending daily if the appointments dont fall well within school hours
"I can see the point of getting people to attend the job centre daily in order to get help to find a job, but are there actually lots of jobs around?"
Round here, and I suspect in most rural areas, you probably do better walking round local employers hassling them. (I am an employer & these days I can't go to the shops without getting asked for casual work, sadly I don't need anyone extra )
Our jobcentre helps lone parents by letting you have your review at a local sure start centre instead if the jobcentre in town. Maybe that kind of thing could be expanded
That's crazy! I'm not really up to date about jsa etc and thankfully am not likely to be in that position in the near future. But yeah, if I was it would cost me nearly £7 return a day
According to BBC- the 3 options (of which daily visits to the job centre is one) are:
To still qualify for jobseeker's allowance they will have three options - work placements, such as cleaning up litter; daily visits to a job centre; or taking part in compulsory training, for example, to improve their literacy.
I'm not sure it's about reducing unemployment, rather so the Tories think the Jeremy Kyle style folk (after all that's what many Tories perceive the people on jsa to be) actually have to get out of bed and go and do something akin to going into work.
It's a bit ridiculous really. And extremely narrow minded. A bit like conservative policy in general.
I've just been scratching my head over Osborne's plans to ensure those on JSA do up to 30 hours per week 'work' for their benefits, in jobs such as street cleaning. I'm wondering if it will just mean - like Work Fare - that employers will no longer have to employ and pay for their own staff.
I's up there with Work Fare as potential vote-grabbing idea, but poorly thought out.
"Our jobcentre helps lone parents by letting you have your review at a local sure start centre instead if the jobcentre in town. Maybe that kind of thing could be expanded"
Trouble is the sure start centre would be in the same town!
I don't think that places like Pembrokeshire actually exist on the radar of government ministers (not a political point, both parties equally bad)
Don't Jobcentres have job advertisments up any more then? Shows how long it is since I went into one, sorry.
Well they do have to find ways to make sure that the feckless don't sit on their arses all day every day don't they.
Disclaimer; do not take above sentence seriously, and yes coalition I am talking to you as well!!
Manchester United will be delighted, instead of paying the likes of Wayne Rooney, £250,000 a week, they can have workfare people playing for them for £60 a week! Can't see any way that could go wrong at all, can you?
Of course that is ridiculous, just as ridiculous as the idea that "employers will no long have to employ and pay for their own staff" because they can set workfare people on instead, and they will be just as good as trained staff.
With millions unemployed the job centres will be very busy everyday. We would have a similar cost issue, over £5 return bus ticket each day, it sounds like a plan that makes sense possibly on paper reality is rather different.
It's just PR at conference time.
It won't actually happen.
They are closing job centres.
There are not enough DWP staff available to manage this.
Just froth - ignore.
I believe people that sign on nowadays just have to sign there name on a form and stick it into a box. There is no seeing of an advisor any more. Although it might be different for different claimants.
I am reminded of an episode of the West Wing where, for reasons that escape me, they needed something to announce -anything - and they went scrabbling around looking for something, no matter how crazy, they could announce as a new policy. This smacks of that. Its like an idea that would come up in a brainstorming session and would normally be discarded but this lot are so desperate for something to work that they are prepared to try anything. What lunatic thinks its reasonable to make people go in every day?
My concern though is, we had a similar discussion when the child benefits announcement popped up out of nowhere one day and not many people thought it would happen. A year and a bit down the line it's policy and is being enforced. I can actually see them being mad enough to do this job centre thing, no-one's going to vote for them again so why not go a bit kamikaze?
(sorry for the rant, got raging PMT - can you tell??)
I think you are mistaken if you think this policy is a vote loser for the Tories. How many people on benefits vote for them in the first place?
jemima like little cards on stands? No!! It's all done online now, job match! No jobs in the jobcentre and they would travel in for a quick 5 min appointment like you get on sign on day
Sure start centres are in the town suburbs here. For line parents it works well
But as jobcentres employ SECURITY GUARDS ( someone always kicks off when the realise they have been sanctioned/money is late etc) then I can see it wouldn't work for everyone.
You couldn't do it from where i live without a car - we don't have a daily bus service. It would be the same to get to a sure start centre. Ridiculous.
It would cut unemployment overnight, you'd need to employ 10 times as many staff in job centres for a start. Bus companies would need to increase services to keep up with demand having a knock on effect of more buses needing building which helps the manufacturing industry which creates more jobs. It's the best idea since sliced bread now all we need to do is find the money to fund it.
(Need a sarcastic emoticon)
Where I live it is a 50 mile round trip to the Jobcentre! Its 2 busses each way (that only run 2 hourly and of course don't connect very well so there's stupidly long waits between connections) costs about £9 and can only be done in a day if you leave on the 8.02 and don't get home until 4.45.
What they need to do to make it possible for people to work in areas like this is equip them with the skills they really NEED to make working possible. Like driving for example - prohibitively expensive yet essential if you are rural. And its no good banging on that people need to move to where the work is because that's also where the affordable housing isn't and breaking up communities and families is not good for society or individuals.
wetaugust has the same cynical thoughts that I do.
Where is the money going to come from to man the job centers that the unemployed will be going to every day?
where is the money coming from the provide therapy for the unemployed at the job centres?
if the unemployed have to work for their money - when will they have the time to visit the job center every day?
Jacks, you could do it on the cheap if you put everyone on workfare as JSA advisors and bus drivers.
Be a bit of a sod for all those actually looking for a job as a bus driver, but thems the breaks.
I imagine that the people that have to work for their money will not have to visit the jobcentre every day.
As for living rurally, that's your choice. I am amazed that anyone can live 25 miles away from a jobcentre. That must really be the back of beyond. Can't imagine that there are many people in that position, and if they do, it must be a serious hindrance to finding work.
They wouldn't need to physically see an advisor, no staff required if they sign into universal job match on the computers provided. That's used as a job search action.
Living rurally isn't always 'choice'!
I know the 2 aren't connected, but here we have lots of social housing out in the sticks....bus services have been cut, what are they supposed to do??
"As for living rurally, that's your choice. I am amazed that anyone can live 25 miles away from a jobcentre. That must really be the back of beyond. Can't imagine that there are many people in that position, and if they do, it must be a serious hindrance to finding work."
Well it would include a large proportion of the population of Pembrokeshire, where I live. And I suspect a large proportion of the population of rural Wales.
Large parts of the UK are relatively thinly populated and have little in the way of services. But we still exist, and it would be nice if politicians (and others) would remember that.
>if the unemployed have to work for their money - when will they have the time to visit the job center every day?
that was the either/or.
No, daily visit to JS unfeasible for most people.
>I'm not sure it's about reducing unemployment, rather so the Tories think the Jeremy Kyle style folk (after all that's what many Tories perceive the people on jsa to be) actually have to get out of bed and go and do something akin to going into work.
It might be that - or maybe so that people working in the 'black economy' are inconvenienced? (no idea if there are many such claiming benefits, just trying to wonder what the rationale could be)
Are the unemployed allowed on buses?
Perhaps if they stand up.
Sitting is skiving.
Are there many jobs in rural Pembrokeshire? No? Do you not think people who are long term unemployed there should consider moving somewhere else? It's generally what happens when the economy changes. I know plenty of people that have moved south to find work. And I don't really live rurally.
If all that's needed is to sign into the jobsmatch site, you could do it from home? I take it you mean the direct.gov site? Not the machines in the jobcentre (they are hilarious, choose 'local' and it brings up jobs halfway up the country).
I can't wait. Going to the jobcentre daily in the school holidays is going to be so much fun. As it would be this week (two separate teacher training days, a strike day, and one off sick).
Still, given that the jobcentre is already really busy, maybe they'll be taking on huge numbers of new staff? Maybe they could staff it with workfare people?
Kerosene can you imagine training them up on workfare as bus drivers, heaven help the rest of the road users. You can sign into universal job match from home if you have internet connection so unless you are actually going to speak to someone going into the job centre daily is just a waste of everyone's time. Besides if I recall correctly from when I was on IS you could claim bus fares back for attending the job centre and in our area that would be £23.50 a week so it would put costs up. My nearest job centre is about 6 miles away and living in the north I can understand how it could easily be 25 miles.
"Are there many jobs in rural Pembrokeshire? No? Do you not think people who are long term unemployed there should consider moving somewhere else? "
Unemployment rate in Pembs: 6.7%
Average in Wales: 8.3%
Av in UK: 7.8%
So better off here than elsewhere, on the whole, though wages are very low. And jobs are sadly a lot scarcer than they were a few years back, as I can tell from the no. of people asking me for work.
it's just an excercise in ritual humiliation. bet you anything the plan is get people queuing outside for hours before being seen. The tories are nostalgic for the days of shoeless plebs queueing round the block each day, outsidd the labour exchange so the landowners could pick out the strongets & fittest for a day's work.
They already can make people visit the job centre every day even people on dwp referred program's or training, and they do use that power but usually only if your under 25 or vulnerable due to a learning disability or learning difficulty
So if you have to work for your money how will you get to the job centre to look for work? And go for job interviews?
I think to be fair ivykaty it is meant to be * either * work for your money * or * jobcentre every day
Perhaps half of them will do workfare and will curry the rest on their backs?
Bus is a luxury!
This is getting so mad and sad.
But i do agree with the third option, the training one. I have done that many years ago, i did ESOL, IT
and interview techniches and it was very useful.
Please somebody give me a slap if I'm completely misguided but I can actually see the benefit of these proposals - if there are genuinely the three options given and the training offered is actually for viable qualifications...
Yes it would be daft to expect everybody to visit a job centre every day, but maybe that would be the 'last resort' alternative if the claimant didn't want to take up either of the other two options.
And as much as I will probably get flamed for saying this - I can honestly say that years back I lived in an area where there was a cluster of unemployed people who did see unemployment as a lifestyle choice. They would openly say this to me and anybody else who would listen, and perhaps if proposals such as this had been in place then, they wouldn't have been able to make that 'choice'.
I am not saying that everybody on long term unemployment benefit is lazy; but the fact is that some of those people are. And anyway, surely if implemented properly, the proposals would help those people who do actually want jobs, to get jobs, with the help of training, work experience and more input from the job centre staff.
I know this is a simplistic view but surely to a point, it makes sense?
"years back I lived in an area where there was a cluster of unemployed people who did see unemployment as a lifestyle choice"
I think that was the case, years back, but I think the whole Restart thing killed it off way back when. I'd agree that in the 80s I knew a people - mainly young and city based - who basically did voluntary work and then signed on for money (tbh, they were probably as socially useful as anyone else, but not really a fair decision for them to make). But I think those days are long, long gone.
Fair enough, takver, I've not seen any of those people for about fifteen years - we didn't stay in touch when I moved .
My opinion is also being skewed by that C4 programme about 1940's benefits recently - where the very hands on approach of the benefits agency workers really did help people find jobs - although I realise it's probably much easier to find someone a job with the tv cameras rolling and a whole production crew on the case....
So those of you that are all for this, would you mind if they dropped your wages to match JSA?
LaRegina, my niece asked for esol or catering training and they told her there is nothing available.
I dont think they are keen to promote the third option, the training, i hope im wrong. They are more keen on workfare.
No. But then I sometimes work 40+ hours a week and trained 5 years for a degree to do the job I have. I also wouldn't really expect JSA to match my wages if I became unemployed though.
La Regina it would also help if goods and services were at 1940s prices. DH said that programme was useless for this reason.
That's not really what I was asking, ok to make it easier, do you think people should be paid less than NMW, and have no employment rights? That includes people that have been made redundant and also may have degrees?
To be absolutely honest, I think at the moment the main thing that would help people here get jobs is for the economy to pick up.
As I posted above, it isn't a high unemployment area overall, but when there are going on 7% unemployed, it is always going to be the easy people that pick up work (so those that are just out of a job).
The people I know that are really struggling, if I am being blunt then they are going to be bottom of the list, they have poor health but not bad enough to be on the sick, they have mild but still problematic mental health issues, that sort of thing. They definitely are employable and if there were a shortage of workers they'd get taken on, but they're not going to leap out of an interview line-up.
Having said that the people I'm thinking of I mainly know because they are doing voluntary work so I see them running the community cafe etc. I don't know if you are already doing voluntary work off your own bat then that will count?
It would cost £13 return to get to the nearest JS centre, from where I live. It is 26 miles away. They already have a scheme where you can post your claim/proof of applications every week, rather than going in.
Besides anything else there are not enough staff or enough room in the Jobcentres for this to work anyway
Since the point seems to be to keep the jobless moving at all times, how about treadmills?
Or they could just run round roundabouts between the hours of 8 and 5?
I used to hate the fortnightly jobcentre rubbish when I was job hunting.
Spend stupid amounts on travel in and out of town, get there, have a useless appointment where asking for help got you blank looks, then be told you have to check the jobs screens. Get given exactly the same jobs as if I'd just checked the website at home, but without the ability to email straight away/do online applications, print of a load of little bits of paper, and go home and repeat the process on my own computer.
Such a waste of time and money.
I have no problem with daily visits to a centre to work at getting a job and having to be at the centre to do this - it means they get up get dressed and have to actually be somewhere. This eliminated people that choose to work on the black market
my only request on that would be to supply a bus pass for twice daily travel - to and fro the centre. That all jobs can be applied for online at the job centre and the job centers are manned properly - then I think this would never happen
If then through the daily visit a job experience come up that would lead to a genuine job then this could work.
But workfare is not about genuine jobs it is about large companies obtaining cheap workforce and then sacking them when their time comes to an end
I can see their logic behind this.
PTB (powers that be) - "You evil unemployed spawn of hell WILL go to the job centre every day."
Poor mug tries to book their appointment along with 2 million others.
PTB - "You evil unemployed spawn of hell didn't have an appointment at the job centre."
Poor mug - "but there were NO appointments."
PTB - "That is not our problem. You evil unemployed spawn of hell who didn't go to an appointment will be sanctioned by loss of benefits..."
Personally I think it's just another electioneering policy that has been ill thought through. Just like the higher rate CB debacle and Labour's energy price fixing (cough) 'policy'.
We've now got a parliament full of MP's who only care about how policies will sound to their target electorate without any real care to the practicalities or long term desirability of such policy.
Making the unemployed go in daily appeals to the core Tory voters who read the Daily Mail each day and chunter about how these leeches are sucking us all dry (along with the immigrants of course)
But Gideon hasn't thought through the practicalities of having loads of claimants turing up each day, let alone the costs.
Prepare for more stupid policies to be announced as time goes on.
How about how people will afford to get to do their
Slave labour jobs as well and also I think it costs more to take a lunch to work rather than heat up some beans.
It costs to work doesn't it?
I really feel for people who will be in this situation.
What about the job positions that these people will be filling? If there are vacancies they should employ people for a decent bloody wage.
From a London point of view (still plenty of jobs for the easily employable) I can see that this might dissuade some cash in hand workers from signing on, but it's a very blunt instrument, and wouldn't have any effect on night-time cash-in-hand workers anyway, so it's presumably punishing a lot of honest claimants in order to target a few criminals.
thing is though the number of 'feckless poor' who are long term unemployed that fit the stereotype of won't work is actually very low surely. There are long term unemployed folk who have mental health issues, drug and alcohol issues it would be far better to invest in sorting out the reasons people are unemployed and getting them into a fit state to be employed. I abhor this whole let's get them picking litter , / working in tesco / caring for the elderly etc. If there is a job available PAY a proper wage for it to be done. I had a spell of unemployment and no way would I have done some job for crap money, I am a skilled person with a degree, this does not make me any different or better but does mean I have zero skills for some of the stuff being proposed. If you were unemployed would you want to pick litter? The reality is that without support and help many people would have their benefits stopped so crime would go up, homelessness would increase and we would have people with severe problems being abandoned... for what? to save money? we would end up paying more to care for them in the long run than the benefits bill. investing in the causes of peoples unemployment and its a win win surely?
I've been looking at the jobmatch site today as DS is comimg to the end of his 3 month contract. There are jobs, if you want an apprenticeship on £2 an hour, that is.
In this village there are no bus services at all.
Flaflafla suggested that this meant we really lived in the 'back of beyond'.
In fact we are about a ten minutes drive from a very busy airport.
"(To clarify, I mean to make it so everyone has a job centre in walking distance....)"
...and would create tens of thousands of extra jobs staffing the thousands of extra job centres"
(Says Pendeen who's bus service is about to be withdrawn - thanks a lot Cornwall Council and Western Greyhound - so she would have a 3 hour WALK to the nearest JS)
You do know you are allowed to be working whilst claiming Jsa don't you?
As long as its less than 16 hours and income is declared and deducted.
The sole point of daily visits is to make things difficult for the claimant and most dwp staff will openly admit this as well as confirming that they only put people on daily as a way to punish.
Wonder how unemployed people are going to wait in for things like the gas safety check if they have to go into the job centre every day.
Ditto having to do workfare. Sanctioned if you dont go into placement.
Threatened with breach of tenancy if you dont wait in for the engineer
I don't actually live in the back of beyond! It is rural but not that rural, only 30 miles from a major city (with airport etc). But there's next to no public transport. There used to be a JC+ in town but it shut 3 years ago.
I think the reason will be that the government does not believe people are actually unemployed - just working in the black economy and claiming too. So those people will not be able to turn up and have to stop claiming.
If there are jobs available on Work Fare, why can't they just be employed thus getting them off benefits
Isn't "going to the job centre" a bit of an archaic concept anyway? I expect many of us still think of the places as having little cards up on noticeboards with job-names which you have to ask an advisor for the details of. Probably a very out-dated idea.
Most people who actually want to find work could probably do better themselves looking online. Even if they don't have the internet at home, it's free in libraries. (Isn't it?) If your library is still open.
I was unemployed for 6 months in the 90s recession and it was a dreadful experience. The "advisors" were about as much use as a chocolate teapot.
The DWP is massively understaffed with front line staff, the staff they do have are not in any way trained to provide careers guidance and generally speaking a programme like this, which will be an administrative nightmare, falls long before even the first hurdle.
Re. the black economy. It certainly used to be the case than van loads of young fellas in work overalls would turn up to sign on first thing in the morning before they went off to do their day's painting or labouring. Not anymore.
26 mile round trip and heaven knows what bus fare. It's a three mile walk to the nearest bus stop and a pretty infrequent service.
It therefore probably takes half a day to go to the job centre.
We had one 5 miles away, but it closed years ago.
No bus and a very dangerous A road full of 40 ton lorries. Up hill and and absolutely lethal on a bike in the rain because bits flood. So that wasn't much better.
And that assumes you have a working bike and that your brother hasn't pinched it again!
Getting to the job centre or at least said 3 mile away bus stop, is an ongoing saga I hear quite often.
Star, can I have a lift, 'D'Brother has knicked my bike, run the household's ancient car/ motor bike out of petrol or I haven't paid the insurance on said scarcely road worthy vehicle. Having been fined for not having insurance, my dear hopeless neighbour is trying to be good.
But it's incredibly difficult if the choice is drive without insurance/MOT etc. to the job centre and get that months money or miss an appointment and spend a week not eating while you sort it out.
Normally on my phone!
It's the Jobcentre staff I feel for. They are being made redundant everyday, their workloads have increased tenfold and now their workload will skyrocket if they have to see the same people every day.
It's not workable. Not just from the claimant side but the jobcentre staff side as well. Christ knows how they will cope. They will get more fustrated, the claimants will get more fustrated...
I'm a little anxious about how all of this and ALL of the changes are going to pan out. Tempers on both sides are frayed as it is.
apparently of the 2 million unemployed only 200,000 have been on JSA for 3 years so roughly 1 in 10
"Of course that is ridiculous, just as ridiculous as the idea that "employers will no long have to employ and pay for their own staff" because they can set workfare people on instead, and they will be just as good as trained staff."
How much better do you imagine "trained staff" are at zero-skilled jobs?
Answer: not at all better.
Which is why companies have stopped hiring casual temps for those kinds of roles and using workfarers instead.
Sarah that's correct but of course a fair few people on mn personally know fucking hundreds of them
This idea is fucking stupid.
What would they do about me, i have claimed jsa for a few years but i also have a part time job (cant bloody find anything more ). Would i be made to attend the jobcentre everyday or do 30 hours a week of community work.
Nickname - I'm sure I have read those suggestions somewhere thinking about it. Under new changes under Universal Credit. Don't quote me on it though but it IS ringing a bell...
NicknameIncomplete - from what I've seen the proposal is to insist that if you are only working part time then you have to look for more hours.
It'll be like the bedroom tax no doubt - even if you earn more on your short hours job, you'll have to take more hours at a lower rate & therefore claim more benefits . . .
Basically all these policies seem to be about giving claimants a hard time on principle even if it doesn't help anyone and regardless of the cost .
Fuck, I was hoping I was wrong. sorry.
Thats good then as i can relax a little and keep concentrating on finding a job with more hours rather than having to worry about doing 30 hours a week forced unpaid work.
This country is shit.
I just want a job thats 16 hours a week or over so that i can sign off. It wouldnt be for less money as i am only getting NMW at the moment anyway.
I remember people on 'new deal' were given bus passes..maybe they'd issue them again? Probably not though!
You don't actually get to pick which of the 3 options you'd prefer, they vary based on the claimant. I know someone who lives 8 miles away from her local jobcenter and they put her on daily signings, she had to walk or hitch-hike and the jobcenter were aware of this.
I'm not sure about any changes they are making but the daily thing has been around a while, it's usually for if you've been sanctioned or if they think you're not really looking for a job. I think it's usually hard for someone who works in a jobcentre to understand what it's like for a claimant and sometimes just assume they're not trying. I was told to apply for a job (compulsory) that would have literally left me with about £5 after transport costs.
Opalite, that's ridiculous. Didn't they do a 'better off' calculation?
Nope, it really depends on the advisor though, some are very 'no excuses' and disregard the fact that there are plenty of valid reasons for not being able to do a lot of the things they expect of the claimants
Yes, the advice and understanding does vary quite a bit between the advisors.
I'm also rural and there is next to no public transport here.
A parent from my DD's school told me they had been told after 6 months signing on that they had to widen their jobsearch to take in 2 major cities that are both around 30 miles away.
All well and good BUT this parent didn't drive. Taking public transport to either city would mean only being able to spend about 3-4 hours there in the middle of the day and having to leave by 3pm to make the last bus home.
Fares are available for any non signing day adviser appointment at the moment so I imagine they will be for daily signers.
Getting a daily appointment though.... Can't do it now so can't see it happening since our staffing has been cut again.
It's all a bit too much dagger and not enough cloak.
More too much swagger and not enough folk
My first reaction was 'what a load of ill thought out tosh'
My second thought was 'what a load of ill thought out tosh'
Unlikely to happen...apart from a handful of people who live on the doorstep of the jobcentres..the practicality of it means it will be unworkable.
You would have to ATTEND the Jobcentre every day, not SIGN every day. If its not a signing day, then your Jobcentre can, and should, pay your travel expenses for 'off-cycle' attendance. Ask your advisor.
However, this would cost a bloody fortune and would hardly solve the unemployment crisis.
I can't work out how this will work - there simply isn't enough space in the jobcentres, or enough resources, or enough staff, to manage this.
The other two 'options' (which would be chosen for you, rather than by you) are to some sort of training to remove barriers like poor reading/writing skills, health problems etc, or to do unpaid work. Again, it's not clear how the unpaid work will be managed or who will provide it.
They will not open a load more jobcentres. Over the next couple of years, they are looking to reduce DWP's staff count by 25%. This is, in my opinion, pre election hot air.
just think of all the paperwork-at least it'll keep all the civil servants in jobs
There's a lot of Pre-election hot air at the moment. I'm hoping that this is part of it as Littlest says.
Freezing energy bills, fuel duty, JSA changes...all they are trying to do is get people on side. They don't actually realise that most of us can see through it and the problems it will cause short and long term. In short, they think we are stupid.
They won't freeze engergy bills nor fuel duty - they never actually do anything that helps - they are bickering over small things in the hope that we will see them as doing something about the cost of living. They're not, they know it and we know it.
Given that most businesses are moving away from physical attendance at meetings that could be held remotely, and given that it'd be cheaper to pay for Internet access than travel to Job Centres on a month by month basis for a lot of people, why can't they require that people log in to the systems from home and apply for all jobs that are suitable in their area?
They could also run "Webinar" sessions where you have to log in and watch/participate in a daily session - Monday, "Improve your CV", Tuesday, "Cover Letters" etc - with the advantage that these could be run from 1 central location in the country, so no massive overheads.
Put in the odd question that has to be clicked on within 60 seconds to ensure people are still there & job's a good 'un.
I'm sure that'd be more productive (and cheaper) than slogging to a Job Centre to sign a bit of paper....
Who is proposing this? Seems rather pointless and unlikely to happen (not that it will not happen because it's pointless - plenty of pointless things happen).
where we live anybody unemployed signs on postally
Comingalong I can't see that working, purely because not everyone owns a computer.
I can't believe whoever suggested that people living in rural areas should get on their bikes and move to where the jobs are yes because leaving great swathes of the countryside empty and piling everyone into crappy festering urban estates is such a recipe for social harmony.
Rural Suffolk here, no bus service at all, 12 mile walk to nearest job centre.
What balls! I live 'rurally' slap bang between 2 towns in North Essex. The town within 'walking distance'
about 6 miles, no pavement has no job centre. The other town is nearly 20 miles away. We get no buses and live on one of the main feeder roads to a major port. You cant bike. Its sodding dangerous. The juggernaut drivers can barely keep to the right side of the road, let alone avoid cyclists.
I didn't move here through choice. It was what we could afford!
thankfully I have a job, but my 27yo DS probably wont when he leaves college. I worry myself sick over him!
Maybe they can have showers in the job centre so people can cool off a bit after cycling miles to get there on a daily basis.
@ Tiredmummno1 They'd have to slog to the JC every day then. Can't cater for absolutely everyone.
It was just a thought anyway...
It's an absolutely crap idea, for all the reasons given above.
I live in a deprived area of Surrey (they do exist) and there are hundreds of claimants. And a tiny job centre.
I wonder what they're going to do with Carers. Full time Carers in receipt of benefits, are counted as unemployed. Admittedly they don't have to be trying to get a job, but everytime those figures are released, a whole army of carers is included in them. So, 2 million unemployed for over three years, even 1% is a fair amount and I suspect it is more than that.
Oh, and they are going to be including the disabled in this little scenario, too. Now, we are rural, my dh is disabled, I do wonder how he will get to a jobcentre if we have to go onto benefits, which at some point, we will. He can barely walk (uses two sticks) let alone ride a fucking bike!
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.