UK uses ugly stick on long term unemployed

28-04-2014 01:48PM

kneemos wrote: »

Bus fares to the Jobcentre every day?

1.90 X 7 = 13.30 a week

toughapple · 28-04-2014 01:53PM

My grandfather told me that years ago unemployed people had to sign several times a week. "He worke in the Gardiner Street Labour Exchange) The frequency varied depending on how far the unemployed person lived from the exchange. Something like 4 times a week up to 2 miles, 3 times between 2 and 4 miles and twice between 4 and 6 miles.
When the unemplyed came in to sign they would be grilled about what they had done to seek work since the last time they were in. Names of employers approached would be demanded and people would be routinely accused of telling lies and making things up. It was calculated to humiliate.

wes · 28-04-2014 01:54PM

Barely There wrote: »

Hardly much of a punishment.

Thats neither here nor there. Its a pointless exercise that has no value and will cost money. Its just having a go at the unemployed to appeal to people who are delusional about the economic situation.

Barely There wrote: »

If you're on jobseekers allowance, you're supposed to be actively seeking employment.

All well and good, as long as people are hiring (and not required years of experience in a specialized field).

Barely There wrote: »

Being asked to sign-on everyday is hardly much of an inconvienence for someone who will no doubt be out pounding the pavements and knocking on doors everyday anyway.

Its a pointless exercise that will add to administration costs for no good reasons, except to give sense of smug satisfaction for people who have it in for those unfortunate enough to not have a job. Surely, the money that would need to be spent to implement this nonsense would be better spent pretty much anywhere else.

dpofloinn · 28-04-2014 01:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

1.90 X 7 = 13.30 a week

1.90 x 6 x 2 = 22.80 Dole is based on a 6 day week and you also have the return journey to consider

toughapple · 28-04-2014 01:55PM

My grandfather told me that years ago unemployed people had to sign several times a week (He worked in the Gardiner Street Labour Exchange). The frequency varied depending on how far the unemployed person lived from the exchange. Something like 4 times a week up to 2 miles, 3 times between 2 and 4 miles and twice between 4 and 6 miles.
When the unemplyed came in to sign they would be grilled about what they had done to seek work since the last time they were in. Names of employers approached would be demanded and people would be routinely accused of telling lies and making things up. It was calculated to humiliate.

mikom · 28-04-2014 01:57PM

toughapple wrote: »

My grandfather told me that years ago unemployed people had to sign several times a week (He worked in the Gardiner Street Labour Exchange). The frequency varied depending on how far the unemployed person lived from the exchange. Something like 4 times a week up to 2 miles, 3 times between 2 and 4 miles and twice between 4 and 6 miles.
When the unemplyed came in to sign they would be grilled about what they had done to seek work since the last time they were in. Names of employers approached would be demanded and people would be routinely accused of telling lies and making things up. It was calculated to humiliate.

They probably passed a Magdelene laundary on the way to Labour Exchange also.

suicide_circus · 28-04-2014 01:57PM

The government should give everyone 40k per year and no one should have to work. The more children you have, the bigger your free mansion should be.

yellowlabrador · 28-04-2014 01:58PM

When I was young and unemployed in Belgium in the late 70's, we had top sign on every day and we'd only be told the day before at what time to turn up the next day. It was hell, you couldn't plan anything in advance. There were very few jobs available at the time so I thought it was cruel. Once a week with an interview about job searches is enough.

SCOOP 64 · 28-04-2014 01:58PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

600,000 available jobs in the UK yet people still sit at home on their arses collecting the dole. Unbelievable.

The same problem here in Ireland. The sooner this bring this in here the quicker all these available jobs will be filled.

Yeah, must be at least 400,000 vacancies to be filled.

No Pants · 28-04-2014 02:01PM

I was on the dole for just over a year, between 2009 and 2010. I had to report to a SW office in Dublin 1 every three months. They made it so infrequent so that they could manage the volumes. On those days, I would be in the queue before the door opened in the morning and the queue would be down the street.

If they brought this in here, they'd either have to put much more staff on duty to handle everyone on the live register* turning up every day, or try and manage with the same staff or maybe one or two more. That would mean the "jobseekers" would be spending most of their day queuing rather than actually jobseeking, which appears counterproductive. Either way, there will be a cost.

* I see that it's aimed at the long-term unemployed, which I'm assuming will be a smaller number, but I've not sure of the definition used.

SCOOP 64 · 28-04-2014 02:03PM

Cant see dole office staff over here coping with this , i think the job is hard enough as it is.

Gatling · 28-04-2014 02:04PM

dpofloinn wrote: »

1.90 x 6 x 2 = 22.80 Dole is based on a 6 day week and you also have the return journey to consider

1.90 x 5 job centers only open Monday - Friday ,

Besides walking will do them the world of good ,
But here it seems a lot have DSP passes ,

dpofloinn · 28-04-2014 02:05PM

No Pants wrote: »

I was on the dole for just over a year, between 2009 and 2010. I had to report to a SW office in Dublin 1 every three months. They made it so infrequent so that they could manage the volumes. On those days, I would be in the queue before the door opened in the morning and the queue would be down the street.

If they brought this in here, they'd either have to put much more staff on duty to handle everyone on the live register* turning up every day, or try and manage with the same staff or maybe one or two more. That would mean the "jobseekers" would be spending most of their day queuing rather than actually jobseeking, which appears counterproductive. Either way, there will be a cost.

* I see that it's aimed at the long-term unemployed, which I'm assuming will be a smaller number, but I've not sure of the definition used.

Realisticaly it wont make much extra work for staff IF as reported it is aimed at 200,000 accross the entire UK

No Pants · 28-04-2014 02:06PM

dpofloinn wrote: »

1.90 x 6 x 2 = 22.80 Dole is based on a 6 day week and you also have the return journey to consider

I live in Swords, but I was always sent in to the office in Cumberland Street in Dublin 1. That would be €25 a week using the Leap card, or €30.50 without. I'm assuming that even though the dole is based on a six day week, they aren't actually going to open the dole office on a Saturday. If I'm wrong, please add €5/€6.10 to the numbers that I quoted above.

Barely There · 28-04-2014 02:08PM

wes wrote: »

Thats neither here nor there. Its a pointless exercise that has no value and will cost money. Its just having a go at the unemployed to appeal to people who are delusional about the economic situation.

Its a pointless exercise that will add to administration costs for no good reasons, except to give sense of smug satisfaction for people who have it in for those unfortunate enough to not have a job. Surely, the money that would need to be spent to implement this nonsense would be better spent pretty much anywhere else.

Perhaps you could post up some figures to back up your assertions that there the scheme will add no value and only add cost.

Unless of course you're just making sweeping statements based on no facts whats-so-ever?

SCOOP 64 · 28-04-2014 02:08PM

Dont think it applieds to every one,
"The latest rules apply to the 200,000 or so toughest cases – the one in 30 claimants who has been out of work for three years or more."

Graces7 · 28-04-2014 02:09PM

doolox wrote: »

While there is huge demand for it here in Ireland and in the UK there is not the money to go into it and keep up with the demand. Forcing people into the job without a vocation or desire to do the work will result in sloppy standards or at worst, victimisation of the people under care by disgruntled workers in their new enforced positions. This will lead to a need fro more supervision and increased costs and undermine the intentions of the scheme. Perhaps there is a need to sort out the unemplyable from the potentially employable and concentrate on the people where there is a realistic hope of a return on the givts investment of time and effort.

disagree. the will to work at any job and do it well is the most vital life skill you can attain. i am a highly qualified graduate teacher but when long term illness ended that career i took whatever work i could get. cleaning,kitchen work, selling diet stuff.

vocation my eye.. look at the highly qualified foreign folk doing menial work

Graces7 · 28-04-2014 02:13PM

toughapple wrote: »

We never had national service here!

really? well no wonder the country is in a mess;)

SCOOP 64 · 28-04-2014 02:14PM

Barely There wrote: »

Perhaps you could post up some figures to back up your assertions that there the scheme will add no value and only add cost.

Unless of course you're just making sweeping statements based on no facts whats-so-ever?

Well what good would it do ,only make people with jobs feel better, seeing the unemployed given as much grief as possible, they must be punish in some way!

Graces7 · 28-04-2014 02:15PM

not every country will keep paying the dole for evermore; i think it is 2 years in canada.then it is stopped.

Obliq · 28-04-2014 02:17PM

Jaysus wept - ridiculous and impossible to implement, is my opinion. Bad enough in cities where there ARE buses, but at least a dole office is usually within walking distance. Here in the sticks, folk are usually LT unemployed through having fallen head first into the poverty trap, ie. living out here necessitates a vehicle, jobs are scarce = cannot keep car, barely can keep roof over head, never mind move to a city with higher rents. The nearest dole office to my area is 15+ miles away, and many LT unemployed hitch lifts to it. Can't see that working every day, especially when the office only opens between 10 and 12.30 / 2.00 and 4.00.

Reekwind · 28-04-2014 02:18PM

Out of curiosity, has anyone actually identified a benefit (no pun intended) to this scheme? It seems that its sole goals are to make unemployment even more unpleasant and drive people into unpaid 'voluntary' work.

Where's the return on investment? What is this going to achieve? What behaviour is this trying to change? Even if you subscribe to that bizarre Tory notion that there's a whole underclass unemployed through choice, surely the effort of a daily trip to the dole office is more palatable than working 9-5? And tying people even further down to their locality is just going to make interviewing for jobs even more difficult.

So, really, what's the point here? Aside from being a populist anti-unemployed political gesture, of course.

wes · 28-04-2014 02:20PM

Barely There wrote: »

Perhaps you could post up some figures to back up your assertions that there the scheme will add no value and only add cost.

Its basic math. You see if you have people signing on at a increased frequency, then there will be subsequent increase in administration associated with the signing on process, which costs money. Now unless you can provide evidence as to why this is incorrect, I think is pretty obvious.

As for it having no value, well the general state of the economy remains the same, and this scheme doesn't change that. You are assuming that everyone targeted by this scheme is some kind of layabout, and that somehow people who have never worked, will magically do so due to this scheme.

Barely There wrote: »

Unless of course you're just making sweeping statements based on no facts whats-so-ever?

You mean like yours posts......

Graces7 · 28-04-2014 02:23PM

whats newxt wrote: »

A basic income is provided to everyone working or not. they did a study in Canada which has a generous welfare system similar to our own and they shown that the removal of the administrative costs of the current welfare systems would allow for a basic income of $7800 p/a without tax increases.

canada does not have a generous welfare system. set it against the high cost of living there and ask hiow come there are nearly 3 million homeless living on the streets

i have family working with the homeless there so we know this. will email your post to them and await the explosion

Mr. teddywinkles · 28-04-2014 02:23PM

So they stand in line for a few hours everyday instead of looking for work. Genius! Politicians really need ass kicked hard

Graces7 · 28-04-2014 02:25PM

wes wrote: »

Its basic math. You see if you have people signing on at a increased frequency, then there will be subsequent increase in administration associated with the signing on process, which costs money. Now unless you can provide evidence as to why this is incorrect, I think is pretty obvious.

As for it having no value, well the general state of the economy remains the same, and this scheme doesn't change that. You are assuming that everyone targeted by this scheme is some kind of layabout, and that somehow people who have never worked, will magically do so due to this scheme.

You mean like yours posts......

so they will need more staff so that will create jobs

My name is URL · 28-04-2014 02:32PM

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So they stand in line for a few hours everyday instead of looking for work. Genius! Politicians really need ass kicked hard

This is the kind of move that will actually win them votes. Rabble roused Daily Mail and Telegraph readers will be fizzing at the slit hearing about it.

the_syco · 28-04-2014 02:32PM

Reekwind wrote: »

Out of curiosity, has anyone actually identified a benefit (no pun intended) to this scheme?

It'll have an effect on the black market that's meant to exist, as you won't be able to take the one day off every two weeks.

I can see this being dropped to every second day, as people looking for assistance may prevent others from signing on?

Graces7 wrote: »

so they will need more staff so that will create jobs

Actually, not in Ireland. There's no money. And no-one in their right mind would work in the Welfare office without pay.

SpaceTime · 28-04-2014 02:34PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

600,000 available jobs in the UK yet people still sit at home on their arses collecting the dole. Unbelievable.

The same problem here in Ireland. The sooner this bring this in here the quicker all these available jobs will be filled.

There's some of that, but there's also a good % of people who are unemployed who do not have the skills or at least have skills that are not appropriate to those jobs.

We had 4% unemployment during the boom times, so it's not like people are all work shy, there are serious issues with lack of opportunities, particularly for ex-construction sector people and those with relatively few tech-related skills.

All this policy will do is cause massive administration overheads for the unemployment offices.

I suppose they could recruit 300,000 people to check the other 300,000 people's sign-ons are valid.

Warper · 28-04-2014 02:40PM

This has the effect of lowering people's self-esteem even further. Lets humiliate them and shatter their confidence, that way they will be confident enough to get a job. Great to see 100's of thousands have to head to the post office every day, great idea for getting people back to work

UK uses ugly stick on long term unemployed

Comments