The American Workfare Experiment In UK

[FORTUNATA]

For anyone who isn't yet aware, the current Government has now fully embraced the American Workfare system and let me tell you in advance it basically sucks. Americans have always had very low levels of protection against poverty, unlike European countries such as France or Germany.

The workfare program does something we never had in this country before. It switches the responsibility of yourself ever being unemployed (or redundant), away from the State and onto you. The former term of "claimant" is replaced by "jobseeker" and so what we used to refer to as "dole" or unemployment benefit" becomes "jobseekers allowance". This then shifts responsibility of employment to your own efforts at jobseeking but disregards Government responsibility to create employment, invest in industry or effectively manage the economy. Put very simply, if you're redundant, it ain't our problem it's yours.

To make matters even worse, a sanctions system has been introduced. Jobseekers who are judged not to have been doing enough have their money stopped altogether. One CAB lady informed me they're now dealing with hundreds of cases.

Recently, you may know, the Government adopted another American idea which was to send jobseekers to companies such as Tesco or chain branches and have them work purely for experience. This has now been stopped due to localised protest and legal challenges (still ongoing).

Of course, I personally totally disagree with the whole line. Sure, people ought to take responsibility to actively seek work but the fact remains there aren't enough jobs being created to reduce unemployment statistics.

I guess you could say I have grave misgivings about the Americanisation of our society and would hate to live in crime-filled streets as is typical in back street New York or gangland L.A.

[KevMc]

Surely the principal is that you must show that you are actively seeking work rather than just expecting payment every month for doing nothing.... I would have thought that if you subscribe to job sites and apply for a job everytime they email you then you have shown you are looking for work.... and even better if you are a liveaboard you can say that you are actively travelling around looking for work as well

[larkshall]

If you are implying the government is changing tactics, then ask yourself why THE PREVIOUS SYSTEM DID NOT WORK

[carlt]

The former term of "claimant" is replaced by "jobseeker" and so what we used to refer to as "dole" or unemployment benefit" becomes "jobseekers allowance".

Okay....UB claimants became "Jobseekers" in 1996, when Unemployment Benefit was changed into the jobseekers allowance.

 

So why do you blame the current government when the changes were made by John Major, 16 years ago?

 

How old is the article you've lifted?

[FORTUNATA]

Which is why I said that, yes, you should take responsibility but I think Workfare goes well beyond that. It now shifts most of the responsibility away from politicians. It's also created a system that's wide open to abuse. Check this out:

"Another former personal adviser said the priority was clear when he joined in July 2009. "The first thing that happened is they took us to a presentation where we were shown a big league table of statistics, including sanctions. They pointed out the offices that were doing well – it's like it's a big competition.

 

"I was threatened by management for asking too many questions. I felt what we were doing in some cases was unlawful." He said he believed offices had "their own take" on social security law in terms of the strictness with which they were sanctioning people, and that "management, and the culture of [Jobcentre Plus] – with only a few exceptions – viewed claimants with contempt."

 

A jobcentre personal adviser agreed that targets for sanction referrals were not new, but said: "The targets [for sanctions] have got higher and the options for getting people into jobs have got fewer. People are being treated as numbers, there is no sense of individuality."

 

Surely the principal is that you must show that you are actively seeking work rather than just expecting payment every month for doing nothing.... I would have thought that if you subscribe to job sites and apply for a job everytime they email you then you have shown you are looking for work.... and even better if you are a liveaboard you can say that you are actively travelling around looking for work as well

[CJR]

For anyone who isn't yet aware, the current Government has now fully embraced the American Workfare system and let me tell you in advance it basically sucks. Americans have always had very low levels of protection against poverty, unlike European countries such as France or Germany.

The workfare program does something we never had in this country before. It switches the responsibility of yourself ever being unemployed (or redundant), away from the State and onto you. The former term of "claimant" is replaced by "jobseeker" and so what we used to refer to as "dole" or unemployment benefit" becomes "jobseekers allowance". This then shifts responsibility of employment to your own efforts at jobseeking but disregards Government responsibility to create employment, invest in industry or effectively manage the economy. Put very simply, if you're redundant, it ain't our problem it's yours.

To make matters even worse, a sanctions system has been introduced. Jobseekers who are judged not to have been doing enough have their money stopped altogether. One CAB lady informed me they're now dealing with hundreds of cases.

Recently, you may know, the Government adopted another American idea which was to send jobseekers to companies such as Tesco or chain branches and have them work purely for experience. This has now been stopped due to localised protest and legal challenges (still ongoing).

Of course, I personally totally disagree with the whole line. Sure, people ought to take responsibility to actively seek work but the fact remains there aren't enough jobs being created to reduce unemployment statistics.

I guess you could say I have grave misgivings about the Americanisation of our society and would hate to live in crime-filled streets as is typical in back street New York or gangland L.A.

I can't see a problem with working say three days a week to earn your dole and benefits that go with it.With the amount of people claiming surely you should give something back,say helping to restore canals, footpaths,and other useful projects where you can learn new skills and help others.

[FORTUNATA]

There was no article. It's my own investigation because this is an American idea. Most policy is imported from the U.S. and applied here. In fact, both Labour and Tories get their ideas from visits to the U.S. You'll find most of the terms used are cloned from the U.S. system.

 

 

Okay....UB claimants became "Jobseekers" in 1996, when Unemployment Benefit was changed into the jobseekers allowance.

 

So why do you blame the current government when the changes were made by John Major, 16 years ago?

 

How old is the article you've lifted?

[Nine of Hearts]

I would have thought that if you subscribe to job sites and apply for a job everytime they email you then you have shown you are looking for work....

 

Not so, or at least it depends who you speak to. When I was 'ployed in 2008, they had a checklist with "have you written a letter to an employer? Have you emailed an employer? Have you telephoned an employer?... etc", and by the letter of the law you had to have ticked them all to qualify. One of my signers(?) was happy that I knew the industry I was in (or not, at the time) and that I was contacting prospective employers looking for my kinds of skills in the correct manner. But the other was not and insisted that I cold call and mail IT support providers, which is not how it's done. The whole thing was a bleedin' farce.

[FORTUNATA]

Yes, but I think you're misunderstanding me.

You could certainly develop a actual work program involving canal restoration, for example. However, I have in mind work based over a minimum wages, same as other workers get. So, let's say 13 hours per week, multiplied by the minimum wages and that to me sounds fair.

However, that isn't what modern workfare has in mind.

 

I can't see a problem with working say three days a week to earn your dole and benefits that go with it.With the amount of people claiming surely you should give something back,say helping to restore canals, footpaths,and other useful projects where you can learn new skills and help others.

[Nine of Hearts]

I can't see a problem with working say three days a week to earn your dole and benefits that go with it.With the amount of people claiming surely you should give something back,say helping to restore canals, footpaths,and other useful projects where you can learn new skills and help others.

 

I can. If you're learning a skill, then presumably there are already people out there making a living with that skill. And suddenly you've just flooded the marketplace with people doing it for free.

 

"to compete with slaves is to become a slave", to paraphrase Mr Vonnegut.

[carlt]

Most policy is imported from the U.S. and applied here.

No, most policy is similar to the U.S. because we follow a similar economic and political ideology.

 

Some of the U.S. policies are directly influenced by British and European ideas.

 

Blaming the states for our woes is just passing the buck.

 

As long as we continue to elect governments who believe in a right wing monetary policy then our system is bound to be similar to the States and any other right wing capitalist country.

 

We get the system we choose and for 33 years we have been consistently choosing a system that blames the poor and vulnerable for all that is wrong, and punish them whilst the rich continue to get richer.

[Nine of Hearts]

Blaming the states for our woes is just passing the buck.

 

I like what you did there.

[FORTUNATA]

That's not what modern workfare is about. The emphasis is on what the "jobseeker" is "doing" to find work, not on work itself.

How many applications have you sent this week?

How many phone calls?

How much time writing letters?

And so on...

What you're suggesting is different that that. It's about organising work for people to earn their money which is O.K. by me so long as it meets the minimum wage over hours worked.

let me repeat and clarify. Workfare changes status of redundant employee to "jobseeker" and the emphasis is then on jobseeking. If your jobseeking efforts fail to satisy any particular bureaucrat at a given time, you're out, high and dry. It may well be the case the individual would jump at a paid job, but the argument being made is thaty he (or she)hasn't done enough.

 

I can't see a problem with working say three days a week to earn your dole and benefits that go with it.With the amount of people claiming surely you should give something back,say helping to restore canals, footpaths,and other useful projects where you can learn new skills and help others.

[OldGoldy]

Surely the principal is that you must show that you are actively seeking work rather than just expecting payment every month for doing nothing.... I would have thought that if you subscribe to job sites and apply for a job everytime they email you then you have shown you are looking for work.... and even better if you are a liveaboard you can say that you are actively travelling around looking for work as well

 

....but there are those who are actively seeking interviews for jobs they will never win, just to satisfy the requirements of JSA. My S-I-L is an independent HR consultant and receives many, many CVs for jobs which are waaaay beyond the reach of the so-called jobseeker applicant who is deliberately wasting employers time and conning the Jobcentre/taxpayer.

 

 

Not so, or at least it depends who you speak to. When I was 'ployed in 2008, they had a checklist with "have you written a letter to an employer? Have you emailed an employer? Have you telephoned an employer?... etc", and by the letter of the law you had to have ticked them all to qualify. One of my signers(?) was happy that I knew the industry I was in (or not, at the time) and that I was contacting prospective employers looking for my kinds of skills in the correct manner. But the other was not and insisted that I cold call and mail IT support providers, which is not how it's done. The whole thing was a bleedin' farce.

 

I agree, a farce it is!

[carlt]

Workfare changes status of redundant employee to "jobseeker" and the emphasis is then on jobseeking. If your jobseeking efforts fail to satisy any particular bureaucrat at a given time, you're out, high and dry.

As it has been since 1996.

 

Working for your dole has also been around since the early 80s, BTEC, MSC, YOP and YTS all coming out of the Thatcher administrations attempt to keep official unemployment figures below 3 million whilst the actual numbers were far higher.

 

so-called jobseeker[/s] applicant who is deliberately wasting employers time and conning the Jobcentre/taxpayer.

 

Are they wasting employers' time and conning the taxpayer or are they just jumping through hoops, to fulfil the requirements to claim benefits, whilst staring forlornly at job pages devoid of anything relevant to them, to apply for?

Edited April 11, 2012 by carlt

[FORTUNATA]

Naturally you would have to consider what impact the use of such labour would have on, say, a BW worker.

However, personally, I myself wouldn't object to anyone earning their benefits so long as the hourly rate of pay falls within minimum wage regulations. So, let's assume, such and such a person claims 70 quid a week then you simply calculate the number of hours required to meet that income and everybody is happy. No taxpayer can then moan about spongers and so on.

By the way I hear of a lot of unemployed doing voluntary work and they are sanctioned also and lose their money:

"Mr Justice Ouseley granted solicitors from the law firm Public Interest Lawyers a judicial review in the case of 22-year-old Cait Reilly, who says she was made to stack and clean shelves for three weeks in Poundland without pay or face losing all benefits under the government's sector-based work academy (SBWA) scheme.

 

Reilly's lawyers argue that being compelled to work represents a form of forced labour under the Human Rights Act.

 

Reilly, a geology graduate, says her situation was made worse by the fact she was already doing unpaid work experience in a museum, and the jobcentre made her cancel this to work in Poundland instead."

 

 

I can. If you're learning a skill, then presumably there are already people out there making a living with that skill. And suddenly you've just flooded the marketplace with people doing it for free.

 

"to compete with slaves is to become a slave", to paraphrase Mr Vonnegut.

 

P.S. The Reilley case will be heard in the middle of this month. She faced a huge backlash and bad press but what isn't understood is she was doing voluntary work at the time in a museum. Not unreasonoable conduct if she was a graduate and offering her services for free to the museum. Yet, Cait wasn't ordered to work at Poundland based on an hourly minimum wage but full time. In crude terms, given she was already doing voluntary work, I'd say that's taking the piss.

I don't think Cait was be-littling shelf stackers but rather she was being used as cheap labour.

[KevMc]

P.S. The Reilley case will be heard in the middle of this month. She faced a huge backlash and bad press but what isn't understood is she was doing voluntary work at the time in a museum. Not unreasonoable conduct if she was a graduate and offering her services for free to the museum. Yet, Cait wasn't ordered to work at Poundland based on an hourly minimum wage but full time. In crude terms, given she was already doing voluntary work, I'd say that's taking the piss.

I don't think Cait was be-littling shelf stackers but rather she was being used as cheap labour.

 

I'm looking forward to hearing how this case works out - really hope she wins as I think this was a case of the JC being really stupid

[davidc]

No, most policy is similar to the U.S. because we follow a similar economic and political ideology.

 

Some of the U.S. policies are directly influenced by British and European ideas.

 

Blaming the states for our woes is just passing the buck.

 

As long as we continue to elect governments who believe in a right wing monetary policy then our system is bound to be similar to the States and any other right wing capitalist country.

 

We get the system we choose and for 33 years we have been consistently choosing a system that blames the poor and vulnerable for all that is wrong, and punish them whilst the rich continue to get richer.

 

I agree with you, but I think our failure rather than the politicians, is most of the electoral is too lazy to vote.

 

Even if you can’t agree or vote for any one on the ballot paper, you should void it by writing across the names, as under our system the returning office most count spoilt ballet papers, and report them along with the candidate’s results. Then lets the politicians explain why most ballot papers are spoil instead of over 50 percent of people not voting

 

Remember the winner is also voted in by the cannot be bothered to votes

Edited April 11, 2012 by davidc

[Machpoint005]

Whilst not violently disagreeing with any of the sentiments thus far expressed, it seems to me that the first basic problem is that there are about 3 million unemployed chasing about half a million job vacancies. OK, my numbers might be out by quite a margin, but whatever way you look at it, there are too few jobs and too many seekers.

 

The second basic problem is that of those half-million vacancies (or whatever the number really is), most are filled by people moving straight from one job into another. In other words, the vacancies are moving about all the time, and an outsider has little chance of breaking back in.

 

Government policies create jobs either directly (state ownership) or indirectly (by encouraging new manufacturing industry). If we don't make 'stuff' then we don't sell 'stuff', and there's no new money to create real new jobs either in the public or the private sector.

[CJR]

Yes,there has been some fair points made,ie being penalised for working for charities,keeping unemployment figures down to win votes, but when it comes down to it what looks better on a cv,done nothing for a year or done training course or a scheme.

[pearlygeoff]

Similar arguments apply to British Waterways 'punishing' and pursuing people living on boats who don't have a 'lawful' residential mooring when they are extremely scarce.

Both situations are examples of public authorities behaving unreasonably when they are required by law to 'exercise their powers in a way that is reasonable.

Who cares. Abusing 'vulnerable' people goes down well with those free of such vulnerability (for the time being).

[Higgs]

 

Remember the winner is also voted in by the cannot be bothered to votes

 

 

Not quite. ' There's no choice between stinking fish '.

[nbfiresprite]

....but there are those who are actively seeking interviews for jobs they will never win, just to satisfy the requirements of JSA. My S-I-L is an independent HR consultant and receives many, many CVs for jobs which are waaaay beyond the reach of the so-called jobseeker applicant who is deliberately wasting employers time and conning the Jobcentre/taxpayer.

 

 

If the Job advert was at the Job centre, You may find that the job seeker had no choice in matter, And was told to apply or be sanction as the 'Government requires' (A common Job centre quote). I known from my own experience few years back, that it was just like that. Employers would either email or call to enquire why I applied when clearly I did not match the job requirements. If a employer requires a 'Junior admin clerk', they rightly expect people who apply to meet the requirements for a 'Junior admin clerk' and not a 40 year old unemployed Engineer/Manager who has been told to apply or be sanction. Even telling the truth to an employer could result in a sanction (Talking yourself out of a position). In the five months, I was given 11 sanctions, all were later revoked.

 

In the Fens, Employers prefer to employ people from Eastern Europe as they meet the following requirements.

 

• Take as little money as possible and work overtime for free
• Always be polite and never show negative emotion
• Take the bullying, stress and like it
• Always available to work at a moments notice at anytime day or night.
• Have little or no knowledge of UK employment rights.

The average UK job seeker requirements.

 

• Find a job where experience isn't needed but dedication and hard work is appreciated
• To be able to survive off the wage, pay bills and afford transport to and from work
• To be able to talk to their employer about issues that are troubling them
• To be treated with respect and common decency
• To have a fair wage packet

Firesprite

 

In the office

 

Not looking forward to the prospect of spending the Summer on Spitsbergen.

Edited April 12, 2012 by nbfiresprite

[cotswoldsman]

Whilst not violently disagreeing with any of the sentiments thus far expressed, it seems to me that the first basic problem is that there are about 3 million unemployed chasing about half a million job vacancies. OK, my numbers might be out by quite a margin, but whatever way you look at it, there are too few jobs and too many seekers.

 

 

 

Yes this figure is way out as it does not include those people who have taken a part Time job while seeking a full time job. It is estimated that there are over 5 million people seeking full time employment.

[jimbo747]

Regardless of the perceived moral rights and wrongs, we need to recognise that the bill for social benefits for those who are "voluntarily" out of work is around £2200 per taxpayer per year. This is unsustainable.

 

Anybody receiving an income should work for it. If you receive £70 a week, then we need 10-15 hours work from you. If you also receive housing benefit, NI payments, etc, then we also need the hours to cover those payments. In short, the total cost of social benefits - including the cost of the people that work in the system - need to be met. That is how every other business on the planet works and that is the way to view social benefits.

 

I do not necessarily agree that people on benefits should be forced into slavery for corporations. There are many, many opportunities in the charity sector and many needs that are not being met. But everybody should contribute. The country can't afford otherwise.

 

A properly implemented scheme would remove, at a stroke, the stigma of being out of work. It would remove abuse - no work, no pay. It would remove the need for draconian rules such as sanctions (which always seem to apply to the professional who has worked all hs life, but not the people that abuse the system). And it would remove the focus on terrorising the genuinely infirm, which seems to be the government's focus right now.

 

But, as usual, it is the left who are obstructing progress over a misplaced concern for "rights".

 

Jimbo