Is this really what people want?

[mcmooncup]

I don't post much on the threads about benefits but here goes......I'm going to start.

I have a company that works in the Work Programme with long-term unemployed people. Over the last few weeks / month I have seen a dramatic shift in the provision of benefits.

Many many many many more people are being sanctioned (i.e. their benefits are being taken away from them) for missing an appointment, calling in sick for an appointment or not filling in forms correctly.

If you make a mistake with ANY of these 'obligations' under the Jobseekers allowance contract, you, from Monday, can have your benefits taken away for 3 months for the first offence, 6 months for the second and 3 years for the third.

So, I can recount a few stories for you:
Severely dyslexic man provides his job log sheet to the jobcentre and has filled out as much as he can. The jobcentre is not happy with this and sanctions him, probably for 3 months. His response....."I'm going to go homeless, I can't stand this anymore"

Man goes to an interview for a job instead of turning up for an appointment with his WP provider, called in to tell them this. Sanctioned for 2 weeks for not turning up for the appointment. Message was never passed on, and despite phone records showing he called, he was still sanctioned.

Man sanctioned for 6 months for missing an appointment because he was poorly. He is a single parent. He is thinking of suicide.

Is this really what people want?

Homelessness? Suicide?

Do people really think it motivates people to get a job? Because to believe that you have to believe that people like being on benefits, I guess?

What am I missing?

thank you for that twofingers, that has made me feel better about ignoring in future.

I certainly saw the bit about servants wanting better conditions but the issue was the same as we have today - some (by no means all) people preferring to live off the backs of hard working mothers who pay tax and stay on the dole than take on work which may not be the kind they want.

There is a huge mood in the country to do something about the squeezed middle who work very hard indeed to support those who don't work. IDS today has commented again about benefits being capped at two children as most people decide to have two children only as that is all they can afford except for the poor who are supported by the squeezed middle who are incentivised to have large families . I think something like 2/3rd of British people support that stance in a recent survey so I am hardly alone in this.

Well let's hope that Mrs Squeezed Middle who fucked up her contraception and ended up with three kids (or had twins in her 2nd pregnancy) doesn't lose her job and end up on benefits then Xenia.

Or does that not happen in Xenia-land? Quite ironic how inhospitable you are, considering one of the meaning of the name Xenia

Wasn't it Oscar Wild who said there was only one thing worse than people talking about you, being ignored.

Actually I think X is rather amusing, she always makes me laugh.

Certainly we should all try to keep a sense of humour however bad things are. Nigerians are the happiest people on earth and not the best off. Money doesn't determine happiness.

My own view is that we just don't have the money for the benefits system as it now is adn the debt labour took on. However we certainly need much more radical policies to encourage industry and the economy.

Actually I think the best way forward is to burn all money and base all human relations not on exchange values but use value.

We can not feed the world on money, only on what we produce, what we consume should be based on need.

My father worked in Nigeria in the 70's, the Nigerian's tapped into the BP oil pipes because they ran along the surface. So poor were they that they tapped into them for miles and flooded hundreds of hectares of farm land. Still we had servants and air conditioning, guards and a driver. So we were fine but it is very dangerous.

Once the chief asked my father's party to move tables in the club. A little later a man came in and sat down, five minutes later he had been shot dead in full view. He was dragged out, when my father left, the dead man was being eaten by the pigs on the side of the road. If children are run over, the driver gets out, pulls the body to the ditch and drives on. When the chief in Benin died many people fled because if you were of a different tribe, you were apt to be beheaded.

I would never call Nigeria a happy place.

I work in a jobcentre and have about about 90 people on my caseload, ie, I am their personal adviser. When i joined I was told off for not getting enough people into work, now, now tha I am gettingt more people into work, i am told off for not stopping enough people's money!!! It is not a 'target' but the general opnion is that stricter benefit regime results in more people signing off. We have been told that if our stopping peoples money rates do not drastically improve that we will be on a performance improvement plan. I notice some staff have no qualms with it and do seem to relish it. Most however, do not enjoy it and take the wrath of their manager over a sleepless night worrying about stopping someone's money. We all refer to a decision make to make that final decision on whether to stop the money but obviously if we choose to ignore it there is no chance the sanction can be imposed. For me there are many genuine cases but i have been told off for being too gullible and even been told to wise up by my boss. it does seem to be assumed that most people are lying and i agree with the comment that the unemployed are demonized! i have a mixture of all sorts, some lazy 18-19 year olds that are comfortable at home and no motivation to get a job, a few in their 50s really lacking in confidence and have worked for years. today i saw a single mum, who was 43 and had done 4 hours work in her life but she hadn't had the life of riley, her son was disabled and she looked like life had been hard. Esteem is often low and I notice that people look worn down by the whole system. On the other hand a guy the other day wanted help with clothes for an interview but instead tried to purchase casual clothes with the invoice he had been given. I love my job but am always shocked at how isolated, disengaged, unlucky and uncared for some people are from society. people aren't born equal, at all :(

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3157570.stm

We don't all have parents or relatives who can help Xenia.

I grew up in foster care as mum went AWOL. Dad - never knew him not even his name. Family? Mum had one brother who she doesn't talk too.

So who would support me if I was on £2.60 an hour etc?

Would you take in a relative who earned a pittance? Bet you wouldn't.

cheekymonkey

I hear you....., in fact full of fury at the Cuntservatives.....

I totally agree with your sentiment cheekymonkey and how the sanctioning is going is literally inhuman and totally uncivilised.

Because who are these unemployed people who are "lazy arsed scroungers"?
I see on a daily basis mentally ill people, addicts, individuals who through lack of care have developed personality disorders, ex-offenders, people who have been sexually and physically abused, and those with learning disabilities.

I see people allowed to leave school at 12 without any education. Is this a fault of theirs? Or have they been systematically abused by the system?

I would love to ask how people happily employed would view a CV from someone who applies for a job with them, when they have no education? When they have not worked for a few years?

Do you give them an interview and find out about them? Or do you bin it as a waste of space? Do you interview them then judge them for not having a super immaculate suit?

What do you think of the contracts that are legal - 4 hour contracts for example? Do you think anyone in their right mind would take a job that guarantees 4 hours work a week?

All of these things add up. All of these things matter. It is not an accident that people end up on the floor with no self-esteem and no clear route out of it. Child protection service, education systems, criminal justice - all of these are inter-linked. And cutting these people's benefits on a whim like is being encouraged in the WP is an utter disgrace - how we treat our most vulnerable is the true reflection of a society.

The savings that are made on the welfare bill will certainly be made up for elsewhere either via the NHS or via the criminal justice system. It is UTTER stupidity. And utterly vile.

Do you think everyone should take a look at what this demonising does?

Never mind 4 hour contracts, mooncup, I know two people (both teaching/ training professionals) who are on zero hour contracts. Great for the employer. No security whatsoever for the employee. As a 'carrot' the employer is holding out the promise of an 6 hour a week contract if they are still working for them in two months' time...

You are right. It's not just stupid, it's vile.

@mini.

There's nothing wrong with my grasp of economics. Whilst I don't claim to be some sort of economics guru, I do grasp the basics. I just don't agree with the left wing views that everything was fine before the Tories and that taxing the rich is the answer to every problem.

What I do hear in your post though is the usual socialist mentality of "There is a solution but you are too stupid/uncaring to understand" The idea being that your moral superiority means you must also be cleverer. Hence why all the long complicated sentences sprinkled with bullshit bingo which frankly are just designed to confuse your average reader into thinking you must know better.

I suspect the real fear is that your average reader actually understands and thinks "Wait a minute....that won't work!"

That's probably the same reason why posters like Ttosca like to poo poo analogies between our economy and a household budget. Whilst there are of course differences, as an analogy I think it's closer than you'd like to admit.

Cuts are inevitable. Is anyone here seriously suggesting they are not? We have a huge deficit which after 3 years of cuts is still projected to be £120 billion PER YEAR. And if you accept that cuts must be made, just where do you think we can save £120 billion from? Hell, even half of it?

It's not about what we should or should not do. It's about what we can realistically do. Right now we're skint. And so we must look at what we're spending money on and decide if it's affordable or not.

If you wish to use the analogy of household budgets, fine. What you do as a household when you are skint is cut out the luxuries, but make sure the basics are covered.

What this policy is not doing is covering the basics. We have people who without the benefit system and through this very harsh system of sanctioning, will not have food, shelter and erm, life.

So, yes, what we should be doing is looking at the luxuries, not the basics. Somethings are not possible to cut, that's the point. Or at the very least, you cut them while replacing them with something else - i.e. jobs in this case.

As I said before, it is a false economy anyway, the needs of these people will not simply disappear (unless you count death as a solution), they will simply be costs passed onto the NHS, the police, the courts, the prisons, oh and the 3rd sector.

So, I agree we should be looking at what we cannot afford, but in order to survive as a civilised society we need to make sure the basics are covered.

Defence. Monarchy. Tax evaders. Cash in handers. More tax revenue?

There are no changes which will result in people not eating. The 20% cuts labour proposed and 25% of the coalition are all going to ensure the welfare state remains.

I do not see why benefits claimants have had increases over the last few years when hard working people have not had pay rises. Why is that justified? Why featherbed the idle at the expense of hard workers who have seen no inflation increases and indeed often pay cuts in order to keep jobs?

Surely the measure of a good society is how it treats the vulnerable and needy. We have an obligation to look after those fellow human beings less fortunate than ourselves. It is a disgrace that disabled people are being victimised in this way. It does seem that OAPs are the only group who have not been targeted for any welfare cuts why are they so immune when there are. Many mega rich ones out there.

Oh bless you Xenia for thinking I am idle (a benefit claimant), I was employed full time for 30 years before March this year. I stopped work when the combination of that and caring for my disabled child got too much and I was making errors in work.

I don't expect a benefit "rise" as I occasionally had in work. I do expect not to go hungry or cold though given my caring responsibilities.

Yes some benefit claimants are bone idle, the majority of us though are NOT and are struggling to know how we will cope once these changes begin to bite. Am looking forward to Xmas this year...I don't know how I will do it on benefits and it will be e first occasion I have had to do so. Am thanking God for a big family who will ensure DS has a nice time.

What the OP is saying is horrific to be quite frank and I am increasingly concerned about the most vulnerable (and I am not talking about the bone idle here...they will be fine) who are and will continue to suffer.

'I watched the Friday night programme on BBC2 Servants. Interestingly it quoted from newspaper articles in the 1920s and 30s about young people choosing to go on the dole rather than take work as servants when there was a desperate shortage of servants. Politicians proposed that there should be no dole for those who could do that work. Plus ca change.'

Because they are expected to work all hours 6 or 7 days away for peanuts. I watched the series, too.

Plus ca ne change pas!

Cheekymonk and mcmooncup - great posts, thank you. What you describe is horrible, but it rings very true.

NIceguy - I don't think anyone is saying 'no cuts at all' on here. Mcmooncup is right. You have to look after the vulnerable, because if you don't, we are all worse off in the end. What do you think is going to happen to these people? Where do they go when they leave the Benefits office? They are going to end up costing us (you) money one way or another, and far better to give them what they need at an earlier stage than scrape them and their families up off the road later.

As taxpayers, we only have two choices. We pay for them to have a decent life and to at least give them the chance to bring their kids up to be net contributors to our society, or we put the problem off till tomorrow and land our own kids with huge benefit bills that they will need to pay to clear up the mess we are making now.

You are a business man. You should know this!

Hence why all the long complicated sentences sprinkled with bullshit bingo which frankly are just designed to confuse your average reader into thinking you must know better

Firstly, I do not use long or complicated sentences, I don't wish to confuse you but it would seem that even very basic theory does.

Anyway did you read the UMAS? NO thought not.

Do I agree cuts are inevitable.....yes I do, do I think this will harm capitalism.....yes I do.....rather than take my word for it read the UMAS paper. Inevitable does not = right.

Do I believe in Robin Hood......no it is far too simplistic and I agree that making our country inhospitable to investment would be wrong.

Do I vote labour

I do not see why benefits claimants have had increases over the last few years when hard working people have not had pay rises. Why is that justified? Why featherbed the idle at the expense of hard workers who have seen no inflation increases and indeed often pay cuts in order to keep jobs

Xenia you are directing your ire at the wrong people. Take for example the argument over public V private pensions and the common misconception that public sector pensions are too generous at tax payers expense. If a private or public pension is generous then a person would have no recourse to claim pension credits, no need to take winter fuel, help with travel costs, free state domiciliary care, HB or any other means tested/untested benefit to supplement income in retirement. A generous public sector pension is neutral. If private pensions fail to deliver at workers expense it is the fault of the fund holders, take it up with them. The same can be said of stagnating wages in the private sector, if wages fall, take your concern to those who are responsible. Direct your ire at the corporations that impose cuts and wage stagnation and inflation, a shrinking state and the rising tide of unemployed.

Xenia "There are no changes which will result in people not eating"

No Xenia you are wrong

Homelessness has already gone up 25% in the last year.
And the changes that have been implemented on 22nd October are leaving people with no money to eat
You are chosing not to listen to this. I am not making this up. Read Cheekymonkey's post - she works in the Jobcentre - workers there are being TOLD to strip people of ALL benefits. That is ALL benefits - JSA, HB - AND they are often dismissed for hardship funds at this point too - and this is for a minimum of 3 months a maximum of 3 years - for missing one appointment.

This is happening to parents too.

What always does confuse me in this argument is this:

You cut benefits for the workless to motivate them to work harder.

You raise taxes for the very well off and this de-motivates them to move abroad and throw their toys out of the pram.

So, which one is right, why does one apparently get motivated by making things more difficult and the other doesn't? How very convenient weird.

I would LOVE for Xenia to come to work with me for a day

The bottom line is that the money is not there and the more you increase tax the less tax is generated (peversely). Any "cuts" (and by the way the basic benefits are not cut, they have increase by inflation something hard working workers have not currently had at all) are minimal. Capping housing benefit at £20,800 just illustrates how generous we had become. If housing is expensive where you live slum it out where I live instead. I cannot afford to live in Central London so I don't see why benefits claimants should be kept in those areas. I mvoed hundreds of miles away from family for work don't see why others should not and of course they will if that is the only way to eat.

But of course, we have plenty of money for foreign wars, foreign aid, rents for MPs on London properties when they own other properties in London as it is, etc.