to think JSA is insultingly low amount

[brt100]

I mean 72 pounds a week is a joke, and you will loose 20% of that if you had an average paying job for half of the tax year.

Around here the daily rate wouldn't even cover the daily bus ticket to get to interviews.

When I was made redundant I went on JSA and was told that I had to have contributions based as I had been working. No choice in the matter.

Woman - what did the Jobcentre tell you? Bear in mind I'm pre-Coalition so if the rules have changed I can't help there, but that's a bit weird.

Someone on a low wage having just lost it with no savings would be income based. If not income-based for some reason, they would swap across after six months. They wouldn't be denied income-based JSA for having worked.

What form did you fill in for it and did it ask you to declare savings and assets?

Anyone living with an employed partner won't get income based JSA as the partner is expected to support them.

22 honey In recent years the same attitudes have come to the fore with regards to workfare. In the late 90s/early00s when I was doing it the general attitude was that id have to suck it up. I do still see these attitudes today but suddenly since the crash of 2008 there has been more of a backlash against workfare.
I believe its no coincidence that this has happened because a larger group of people in society have been affected in this recession which includes more of the middle classes who think that little Johnny or Jemima shouldn't have to do it.

Now im not totally buying the fact that people are more aware now that workfare goes on because of the rise of social media. That may be a small part of it.

People were aware before (there was even a storyline on Brookside about YTS back in the 80s) But I think at least some of the backlash against it in recent years is due to the fact that its not just the working class that has been affected this time.

Where was the support and backlash against it back in the 80s 90s 2000s Nowhere to be seen.

Ok I'm going to leave the thread now so I don't get wound up
Just wanted to say I'm sorry if I've given duff info. I was purely going on what we (dh- he was claiming) were told.
I'm leaving so I don't get wound up when I find out they told us bollocks and that we didn't need to struggle as much as we did (and still be feeling the impact). If of course they were right then it's unfair (and if they were wrong then it's been unfair for us as we could only rely on the )

I work with vulnerable teenagers. Several are on JSA (57.35 per week for under 25s). As they live in emergency council accommodation they must pay 18-20 per week "personal surcharge". They have to attended the Job Centre at least once per week and bear the cost of travel.

After that they can buy food (but must also purchase kitchenware as it is not provided). Then if they have anything left they may be able to buy a few interview appropriate iems of clothing.

It is very sad and stressful.

shockingly Some of those clients you were dealing with back then probably made the mistake of believing everything that's in the Daily Mail or The Sun.

As far as I am aware the rule is this. If you have paid NI in the appropriate year you get contribution based which lasts six months. After that nothing if you have over the amount allowed of savings or have a partner who works and earns over a certain amount. But if you didn't have savings or a low earning partner you would qualify for income based. Not unheard of to be told different things by different employees of the JC.

TheWoman - I'm sorry! I tried to make you a PM but I'm a newbie here and couldn't figure it out. There are groups that can help you and your DH, go over the forms etc - don't give up! Don't try to do it alone as it can be very tough, even your CAB can help you. Best of luck.

Darkesteyes- I worked in the Jobcentre in the mid 2000s. We had no power at all to send anyone on workfare - YTS had finished, and workfare as we know it now began under the Coalition. We could, and did, compel people to attend job interviews. We also had a strong attitude from above that we should sign people on to incap (incapacity benefit, ESA) whenever possible, but we were discouraged from sanctioning. A high level of sanctions, in those days, meant your Centre was underperforming.

We used to get a fair few people in who were illiterate (usually down to learning disability), addicts and the like. We knew those people would struggle to get jobs anyway, and I was working in an area where there was a lot of poverty and few jobs. We were sort of honest with them "Oh hiya, Jamie, is it yourself? Can I get you a wee glass of water and if you could just sign here...aye, anyway, nae jobs this week but good job you came in!" If we'd had more time and less clients we could have been more helpful, but we had an absence of the former and an abundance of the latter.

What we were is absolutely panicky and twitchy about our own jobs. I wasn't, having realised my coat was on a shoogly peg and started looking elsewhere. However most of my co-workers were gossiping in corners "Did ye hear Maureen's gone tae pre-surplus?"/"I'm on surplus now, what the fuck dae I dae?"/"I've been took off surplus but it's juist my box marking - if I dinnae get more clients off JSA I'm fucked"." It didn't really help us deal with clients when we were on very low wages and constantly looking over our shoulders.

Anyway, a long rant to say I would never work there again. It's horrible and even worse for clients dealing with it.

shockingly my local JC had me on New Deal again in 2007 so it cant have been the same everywhere.

Ah, New Deal. I didn't do New Deal clients (they were the desk across from mine) and my understanding was that they were made to do rather crappy things like endlessly overhauling their CVs and could go on fixed work placements. If they did, they were pretty much guaranteed a job. Because most of our New Deal clients were single mums, we had to be careful about other factors "which might affect placement". I am not sure what those factors are or were. I just remember that from Centre meetings.

I do remember one New Deal mum bringing her kid in and being referred across the room for the first time. She burst into tears and sat down in front of me and wouldn't move, and I was feeling pretty bad for her. An older adviser came and spoke sharply to her and she moved. Her kid was crying and she was crying and I think she'd just had enough. So I guess it wasn't a good thing, but I don't know.

'People should consider whether they can afford to have children. '

this is a non existent argument because as you will see from this very thread no one can guarantee being able to afford their children for good unless a multi millionaire. Someone with a job could lose it.

Shockingly- I know I said I was leaving the thread . I did walk the dogs
We're ok now. Dh has had a reasonable job with lovely people for just over a year now. I just hate the system.
Anyway I'm going to go and eat my dinner .

TheWoman - I am glad to hear you are out of it! The system isn't pleasant for anyone, either side of the desk.

No shockingly not always when I did ND in 2000 I did 3 months workfare in a charity shop (first month was in a charity shop and next 2 months were local council which I had to sort myself.
When this ended I was referred back to the New Deal advisor who then tried to arrange for me to work in a soup factory for 3 months for my JSA.
By sheer luck I found a night job in a local paper in a sex chatline office and got the job.

Took me TWO HOURS at the jobcentre to sign off cos the idiots at Reed couldn't find all my paperwork.

I started the job and within a few days my boss had told me that during the day those prats from Reed had been round asking her all sorts of questions trying to lose me the job. Why? because they got a percentage for everyone they sent out on a "work placement" I was lucky My then boss told them to piss off But she could have easily decided I was too much hassle and terminated my employment which is what I suspect those at Reed/Pelcombe were hoping for.

I wasn't the only one going through all this yet back then society/press etc didn't want to know. Not until it started to affect those higher up the economic scale. Hence my previous post.