A friend of mine is on the work programme and goes every 2 weeks to her employment advisor at one of these private companies (I don't want to say which one because her advisor has been very helpful to her). The people are very nice and try to help, but it's frankly pathetic. They have computers that more often than not don't work and use programmes woefully out of date, half the time it's almost impossible for her to log onto her government gateway account there because the version of IE they use is so old. They appear to be understaffed, anytime a member of staff is off sick no-one takes up the workload. They've also put her through 3 courses now, one lasting 15 weeks called something like "functional skills" that is basic English and Maths. She has A-levels in both those subjects and on initial assessment for this course got 100% in both subjects yet is still required to attend the course for 15 weeks and then pass an exam (which is irrelevant as she has far higher qualifications in these subjects and could pass right now anyway) at the end of it. It would appear so that this company can then claim funding from the government for having put her (and plenty of others) through this unnecessary course. So that's plenty of time (and money) wasted on a course she didn't need (and from the looks of it most other people on the course didn't need either) and could do stood on her head from the beginning, that could have been spent trying to find her a job.

Now this advisor has helped her put a better CV together and given her help with writing better covering letters, but I don't think that's anything a better funded jobcentre couldn't do.

"Now this advisor has helped her put a better CV together and given her help with writing better covering letters, but I don't think that's anything a better funded jobcentre couldn't do."

Ah but you forget that the JCP is in the public sector and the Work Programme Provider is in the Private Sector and, as such, will be doing a better job.

Must be absolutely soul destroying for her.

TBF, all this is is a privatised (and therefore more costly, since it has to involve profit) of a problem that's been going on for years. Agencies have no idea how to deal with job seekers who actually have qualifications and experience, including the very experience of work (ie they're not 'workshy' etc).

A friend of mine was made redundant at 58. He'd never been unemployed; he had plenty of qualifications and had worked in a variety of fields. So there was no question that he was 'workshy' or even extremely limited in what he could/would do.

He had no joy at all. He got a few interviews, but no further than that. In essence, they'd consider him too old. He got sent on training courses that were perhaps not as irrelevant as those you mention, but not far off it.

For the last few years, he's been trying his hand at making artisanal food, even though he's now past the retirement age.

Similarly, I've been turned down for jobs in the last decade for, in effect, being too old. Having freelanced at one major media organisation for nine months (including being left to look after the outfit on my own over one Christmas) I was given an interview for a permanent post doing that job. Feedback informed me that I had done an excellent interview, but wasn't getting the job because I'd 'be bored within a short time'. I would, apparently, have been applying for 'middle management' posts at my age and given my experience.

Which is fine and dandy, except I have no interest in doing that (again). Why does anyone [ihave to[/i move into such positions at some given age? And on top of that, you try getting into an organisation, in such a position, from outside that organisation (I tried). So 'too old' to get on the bottom rung and 'too old' to not be on a higher rung.

The whole thing is absolutely bonkers.

I'd also say that they (the system, in effect) are equally happy if you formerly go self-employed, which I had to, in the end. They get to ship you off the books, even if the jobs you get are few and far between.

But to return to what I posted earlier: the core problem is that there are not enough jobs for everyone of working age. So employers can play silly büggers as above, and agencies can often only shuffle the deckchairs.

One is given to wonder how the goverment can count them as [uemployed[/u for the purpose of statistics but as [uunemployed[/u when it comes to them being paid JSA rather than minimum wage during said "employment".

In light of some of the last few posts, for those who have stressed a particular issue with benefits, do they:

1) believe that there are enough jobs for all those of working age?

2) If not, isn't the issue of those people who have little interest in getting a job really just a red herring when there are plenty of people who want a job but cannot get one? Isn't this something that could only realistically be dealt with in an economy that has full employment?

And these are intended as serious questions – not sarccy ones.

Sorry to be sarky but good luck with that one.
You'll get a load of flannel about "people can get jobs if they really want one" (conveniently igoring the ratio of jobseekers to jobs) and "why should I?" about paying tax for benefits (conveniently side-stepping one's duty as a human being).

I was unemployed for 8 months during the second Thatcher recession. After 6 months I was automatically moved to a scheme called (IIRC) Jobcentre Plus where I received just the sort of help you describe, along with access to an office that had facilities for printing, photocopying, telephone, etc. and all the newspaper jobs sections every day.

Now, as it happens I found a job not long after through another route; but it was really helpful and provided FOC by the state.

If the hundreds of thousands or more who really, really would like a half decent job could actually be found a half decent job, then it might be worth turning attention to the so-called workshy/scroungers, but what difference does it make what my attitude to working for a living is, if there are no jobs, nobody has any spare money to spend that might then conceivably lead to creation of more jobs, and all we hear is that there's decades more of the same cuts, tax hikes and "austerity measures" (though naturally none that affect government ministers, MPs, bankers, tax avoiders etc etc) to follow?

Jobcentre Plus is now basically just used for the job seekers to sign on and for the staff to "check" you've applied for a minimum of 3 jobs per week. I don't know what the national picture is like but at my local job centre plus office (which job seekers must attend every 2 weeks to sign on) they have only 7 minutes contact per person every 2 weeks. Now I seriously doubt 7 minutes every 2 weeks is anywhere near enough time to actually help someone find a job. Especially when that 7 minutes includes calling the person over, confirming their identity, finding their file, quickly reviewing their file, checking they've applied for 3 jobs a week and getting the person to sign on.

If jobcentres were funded properly they could easily do the same (and IMO better) work than the agencies are doing for people on the work programme and give proper, effective help to those who aren't so they don't get to the point of going on the work programme in the first place.

Especially in a climate with not enough jobs like Mintball says.

Thats why I'm convinced "Standee" is a persona and you are seeing the real Standee who uses his real name in the media, on the KC threads. I know which comes across the best

To HIM:
there are, also, other meetings of 10 -30 minutes at which CVs etc are looked at


However the trend is towards the support referred to being offered and delivered by the private sector.

If the person is on a Work Programme, the job search may be evaluated from a "drop and go" or by the Work Programme provider.

The only time I've ever signed on in my life was in 1992, an experience that I will always remember and swore I would never go through again.

At my very first Job Centre interview, I took my CV along and asked about any help they could provide with stationery, postal costs, access to trade magazines etc. I was gobsmacked when I was told that I would have to wait 26 weeks before being elligible to use the Job Club. This despite all evidence pointing towards early assistance being far more productive at finding permament employment.

This was further compounded when after I was granted an interview with a company in Newcastle, the Job Centre told me they'd pay my bus fares. It was their turn to be gobsmacked when I informed them that my interview was in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and not Newcastle-under-Lyme (I was living in Mid Staffs at the time). There was a very real lackof comprehension about mobility of jobseekers. I was then told I could apply for a travel warrant for 2nd class rail fare. The problem with that was there was no way I could travel and return without spending a night away. Despite proving that the rail (or even bus) timetables prevented travel within one day, there was no facility to pay my expenses for travelling in my own car, so had to fund my travek costs from my dole.

Thanfully I managed to find my own job, without any more "assistance" from the Job Centre

I would say, at this point, that I know Standee – and a number of others on these forums. And I do think that a forum like this can distort who we all are – and yes, I include myself in that.

This has many things about it that are good, but it does also emphasise stuff on a very simplistic level. And, y'know, the latter is a shame. And not particularly conducive to good debate.

I'm trying to fathom whether that's a defence of the indiviual or you are being prosecutary?
Are you attempting to articulate he has redeeming characters to his personality after having the opportunity of meeting him in person?
Or, do you believe it's unfair for fellow forum users to form conclusions based on what he types on this forum?

Simply trying to say that for many of us – my self included – this forum sometimes seems to see us bogged down in rather more extreme forms of what we might say otherwise, with debates becoming polarised.

The trouble is that tone of voice can't be heard on a message board, so some people might be making a point that comes across as much more shrill than it would have done down the pub.
The respondent replies in what they think is the same tone ... and it escalates.

Good point.

That is true but sometimes plain English is intended to be read as such and leaves little room for interpretation. Stating someone is "workshy" for example isn't open to misinterpretation.

I also don't think it is news to anyone these days that a text document doesn't carry any information about the tone of how people would speak so I think that excuse is out of date.

So do I. We both climbed the stairs to a function room in a pub together, only he went up normally and I had my crutches, working out how to get up the stairs, eventually doing it crawling, on my hands with Mr HWS having to support me. And yet he still lays claim that people like me don't deserve any benefit and I should do something deserving for it and I more or less should accept my lot in life. Thats what he says on here anyway. He was quite nice to my face and understanding at the "do" we went to.

Agreed


I'm not saying that the lack of tone of voice is the only source of misinterpretation, indeed, to clarify, I think it's just one of many possibles.
I agree that some words (such as workshy) have the same impact regardless of tone of voice and are very plain indeed.

It seems to me that you are one who chooses his language with care.
Not all do that, and some just aren't able to.

Why do you have the same avatar as "Chris28"? Are you in a relationship?

True but one of the best places for learning how to do that has been for me forums such as this. I am not saying everyone may even [iwant[/i to do that never mind should but wittering away on here and other places hasn't done me any harm as far as use of English goes.

I can answer that. The picture is of "Gentleman" Johnny Whiteley M.B.E who played for Hull FC from 1950-1970. He was also coach of the famous 1970 GB team who was the last team to win the Ashes. He also has a suite named after him with his pictures in it at the KC Stadium

Assem Allam and his son who own Hull City FC and the Stadium Management Company have decided this week to take down all the pictures of Johnny Whiteley in the JW Suite at the KC because Hull FC have refused to pay his invoice for "wall space" that has never been implimented (or agreed to) before this week.

HTH

Your lack of knowledge of anything not "reported" by the Daily Mail is noted.

Now, back to your racist homphobic bigotry you go.....jog on.

I was a year later in 1993 but the rest of my experience is nearly identical. It was Job Club I got sent to - Jobcentre Plus came years later.

I'm not knocking Job Club at all but having to wait 6 months before being eligible was lunacy.