Stupid UC changes

[daimbarsatemydogsbone]

So now you have 4 weeks to get a job you could actually do - then you just have to apply for anything/everything.

Every time we have a thread on here about recruitment, the HR wonks pop up and complain about all the "dross" applications from people not qualified for their wonderful opportunities - how will this help?

Rather than punishing people for lack of suitable vacancies it is time the goverment tried to help employers to offer more and better jobs.

@VelvetChairGirl

Oldsu

if you did not have those 9 people would your husbands company be advertising for extra staff?

and if not then what the hell are those 9 people doing all day if there is no work to be done?

VelvetChairGirl I am not going into the specifics of my DH company but the extra people they took on the scheme were in their HO and large satellite sites they were mentored supported and helped by existing staff and managers, rotating between a few departments to find the right fit I would have thought they were operating in the spirit of the scheme by creating jobs and I also believe that 2 of them were employed to fill vacancies that opened up during the 6 months they were on the scheme.

I'm generally of the opinion that if a business cannot afford to treat its employees decently it has no business being around! I've worked in roles when I am doing the books for small businesses - often where the owners plead poverty when it comes to providing decent terms and conditions for its staff? And I know full well the money is there!

But...even if you feel small businesses need more support, then surely the answer is to fund that support NOT by keeping wages artificially low and topping them up via heavily policed benefits, but by NOT subsidising large businesses (who definitely don't need the help!). Directly helping those businesses that do need help - after scrutinising their books! Put them under the same kind of scrutiny that claimants currently are! That would prove interesting!

It would indeed be interesting if instead of paying ft employees in work benefits to meet the cost of living, employers had to pay a wage that reflected that and apply themselves for a 'top up' to enable them to do so if they say they can't. And their financial situation were scrutinised to ensure that they're actually, genuinely not able to pay and why. That their profit margin is investigated and they're told what is a reasonable amount to hold in profits and if you make more than that, then no, you can't have a government subsidy to pay your staff and make yourself more profit, or grow your business.

Would people be happy with companies making millions in profits also getting tax payers money to pay a decent wage? Because effectively with some companies, that's what's happening, only it's their employees being scrutinised and getting the judgement because they're directly in receipt of the money. No one is telling these companies that actually, you're costing the tax payer money by paying such low wages meaning employees need government support and sort yourselves out, that's reserved for the employees - pretty much exploited and then blamed for it happening.

but then again a lot of the things she said i her post is untrue

Whoah! What was untrue!

If you are going to accuse me of LYING be specific!

The clothes thing IS NOT untrue as not everywhere has charities addressing this issue, it used to be you could get help from Dwp with this that scheme has now been abolished - TRUE

Some people DO lose access to free prescriptions etc due to JUST being over the threshold for this but if they're on lots of meds the costs are prohibitive - TRUE!

Mobility aids cost - TRUE certain mobility aids are available free but quite honestly these tend to be the basics and aren't suitable for everyone plus not all equipment is provided free mainly "smaller" items while each item is "cheap" the costs add up! - same goes for specs. Hearing aids I will admit I am not an expert in

Childcare or elder care IS limited in access and expensive - TRUE

Transport - costs can be excessive and/or transport is poorly provided - TRUE

Lunch costs/storage CAN be an issue

"Better off in work" calculations often don't account for increased outgoings and only consider APPARENT increased income usually also failing to consider other income that may be lost - TRUE

Hardship payments can and are rejected TRUE

Say I may be ill informed or mistaken in some areas but DO NOT accuse me of LYING!!

SweetFelicityArkwright excellent post

This is exactly it! The employees on poverty wages are scrutinised, judged and found wanting while the millionaire employers are truly the ones PROFITING from in work benefits

I've claimed benefits twice in my life and both times found the process ridiculous for me personally.

The first time was before UC and I was young with no caring responsibilities, and therefore willing to take anything. I was shocked I only had to present at the Job Centre every other week and tell them I had searched for/applied for 2 jobs a week. That is seriously what I was told. I applied for anything and everything, spent all day online, and was overqualified for everything. I was turned down for a TEMPORARY typist job because they thought I would leave as soon as I found something else.

The second time I had a young child and was pregnant/had a newborn. Early days of UC. I wanted to work but was told I didn't have to even look for work for years yet, which is great from the perspective of allowing parents to stay at home but terrible given that I actually wanted to work. I was able to take a job regardless of childcare as I had family locally to help. The attitude of the Job Centre was just - don't bother. But then they made me go to a meeting to discuss my future plans when it was still years before I actually had to begin applying.

I left the country so I never got to the point of needing a work coach but it was a total load of bollocks. Nobody at the Job Centre was actually going to help me find a job and some of them almost seemed pissed off that someone with my education, qualifications, and experience was there in the first place.

I agree with several PPs who mention targets etc. And while I agree that there comes a point when most people should be reasonably expected to take any (reasonable) role, I don't think that time comes just 4 weeks after becoming unemployed!

In itself it is a sensible caveat to receiving UC. But we all know that the whole system is crap and needs to be rebuilt.

From zero hour contracts, national minimum wage to how any benefit is awarded. A whole economy reboot is needed.

Sanctions as a first step? Ludicrous.