Program on channel 4 last night SKINT
Comments
-
OK here I go - I worked at a fairly high level in the area of getting the long term unemployed into work (but not in the work programme) - so facts for you - if anybody is interested in facts?
The programmes I manage are not like the work programme where people are forced onto the programme.
The work programme get about 3% of people into work - our projects get around 25% of people - both groups are taken from long term unemployed. Bot WP and ours pay only for results - don't get results then there is no payment.
Two reasons for our success - we pay a little more up front than the work programme for advice and guidance - this though is not a major thing as the companies running the WP have cash to spare so can front load. The MAIN reason for our success is that the people we try and get work for are for people who want to work. A large % of the people who are long term unemployed just don't want to work. They follow the rules and turn up to interviews etc. but make damn sure they are not offered the job.
Second thing - due to the recent changes in legislation the number of people applying has increased significantly - if it is less easy to live off JSA then you go to work. Therefore you need to find a balance.
As for in work placement (working for free) the "fat cat" companies that do this give the person training and help and guidance as part of the work - they also give them a reference to help them get a job (very necessary if you are looking for work after being out of work for a number of years). Additionally a large amount of the work placements are offered a job by that very same company if they did well during their placement. The truth of the matter is - if a person does a work placement, based ion actual results we see (and this is across tens of thousands of people). The people that do a work placement are 2X as likely to end up with a job as those who don't.
The facts that people have to realise is that there are a lot of people who just don't want to work and the welfare state allows them to do this (plus they can get a bit of cash in hand from doing odd jobs or crime in a few cases). The thing that annoys me most is that there are people who really need help and support and more money - but these people are not getting the help they need due to a large amount of scroungers who are milking the system and every penny spent on the welfare state is another penny that cannot be used elsewhere to create new jobs.
Now you can all go back to focusing on individual cases and ignore the facts.0 -
With respect, I don't understand how the presence or absence of scroungers affects the ability of deserving cases to acquire the benefits they need or are due. I can kind of understand they mightn't get the time due to clogging in the system, but surely the financial issues are unaffected.0
-
Apart from financial limitations that a country faces (you may have noticed most countries are borrowing heavily to finance their spending)
You additionally face a system where if you are writing the rules for how much money can be given to a person you have to decide on two factors 1) how much do they need 2) how little can I get away in order to convince people who don't want to work that they have to work. Wouldn't it better if you could just make that decision where you pay people what they need i.e. (1) only, because you know the people are doing all they can to work and if they are not, then it is because they are unable or cannot find work.0 -
MisterMuncher wrote:
what the whole issue boils down toin base terms is that i think it would be good for those that are longterm unemployed to do a bit of volunteer work and contribute to society in whatever way, if they are unable or unwilling to find a job. you seemingly think its perfectly fine for people to give nothing back.
It's not volunteer work if it isn't voluntary. Nice but of strawman building though. If you can't meet the actual argument being made, just make some nonsense up and fight that instead.
And, once more: If the scheme is for longterm unemployed, how can you reasonably assert that those participating will be transient? It's a paradox.
analysing semantics, yawn, everyone knows whats being said here.
yet again you pick and choose the words and quotes to support your view. i said 'ideally' those doing said schemes would move on in to employment, thus it would be transient, as perhaps it would motivate people to accept jobs they otherwise dont want to do. rather than carrying massive chips on there shoulders.
whats wrong with populist ideas? the fact they are populist means the majority of people think them so it would be a good thing in most peoples view. as i said as you kow all the answers and clearly want people to put nothing back in society (no wonder the sense of community no longer exists in many places), thats fine. most people dont agree with something for nothing though.0 -
jonomc4 wrote:OK here I go - I worked at a fairly high level in the area of getting the long term unemployed into work (but not in the work programme) - so facts for you - if anybody is interested in facts?
The programmes I manage are not like the work programme where people are forced onto the programme.
The work programme get about 3% of people into work - our projects get around 25% of people - both groups are taken from long term unemployed. Bot WP and ours pay only for results - don't get results then there is no payment.
Two reasons for our success - we pay a little more up front than the work programme for advice and guidance - this though is not a major thing as the companies running the WP have cash to spare so can front load. The MAIN reason for our success is that the people we try and get work for are for people who want to work. A large % of the people who are long term unemployed just don't want to work. They follow the rules and turn up to interviews etc. but make damn sure they are not offered the job.
Second thing - due to the recent changes in legislation the number of people applying has increased significantly - if it is less easy to live off JSA then you go to work. Therefore you need to find a balance.
As for in work placement (working for free) the "fat cat" companies that do this give the person training and help and guidance as part of the work - they also give them a reference to help them get a job (very necessary if you are looking for work after being out of work for a number of years). Additionally a large amount of the work placements are offered a job by that very same company if they did well during their placement. The truth of the matter is - if a person does a work placement, based ion actual results we see (and this is across tens of thousands of people). The people that do a work placement are 2X as likely to end up with a job as those who don't.
The facts that people have to realise is that there are a lot of people who just don't want to work and the welfare state allows them to do this (plus they can get a bit of cash in hand from doing odd jobs or crime in a few cases). The thing that annoys me most is that there are people who really need help and support and more money - but these people are not getting the help they need due to a large amount of scroungers who are milking the system and every penny spent on the welfare state is another penny that cannot be used elsewhere to create new jobs.
Now you can all go back to focusing on individual cases and ignore the facts.
interesting points from someone actually in the system0 -
the playing mantis wrote:MisterMuncher wrote:
what the whole issue boils down toin base terms is that i think it would be good for those that are longterm unemployed to do a bit of volunteer work and contribute to society in whatever way, if they are unable or unwilling to find a job. you seemingly think its perfectly fine for people to give nothing back.
It's not volunteer work if it isn't voluntary. Nice but of strawman building though. If you can't meet the actual argument being made, just make some nonsense up and fight that instead.
And, once more: If the scheme is for longterm unemployed, how can you reasonably assert that those participating will be transient? It's a paradox.
analysing semantics, yawn, everyone knows whats being said here.
yet again you pick and choose the words and quotes to support your view. i said 'ideally' those doing said schemes would move on in to employment, thus it would be transient, as perhaps it would motivate people to accept jobs they otherwise dont want to do. rather than carrying massive chips on there shoulders.
whats wrong with populist ideas? the fact they are populist means the majority of people think them so it would be a good thing in most peoples view. as i said as you kow all the answers and clearly want people to put nothing back in society (no wonder the sense of community no longer exists in many places), thats fine. most people dont agree with something for nothing though.
Analysing semantics? No. Reading what you've written. Pardon me for actually taking you seriously.
The problem with populist ideas are that they're never actually thought through. The answer a supposed need without any thought to consequence. It's enough that they give the plusgood bellyfeel. Is it too much to expect people to consider things a little deeper?
And again with the "you advocate people getting something for nothing" strawman horsedung. Go on, show me just once where I said that. Or is that "analysing semantics"?0 -
jonomc4 wrote:Apart from financial limitations that a country faces (you may have noticed most countries are borrowing heavily to finance their spending)
You additionally face a system where if you are writing the rules for how much money can be given to a person you have to decide on two factors 1) how much do they need 2) how little can I get away in order to convince people who don't want to work that they have to work. Wouldn't it better if you could just make that decision where you pay people what they need i.e. (1) only, because you know the people are doing all they can to work and if they are not, then it is because they are unable or cannot find work.
Nothing I disagree with there, really. Objectivity is rather hard to acquire in this debate, but you seem to be managing it.0 -
MisterMuncher wrote:the playing mantis wrote:MisterMuncher wrote:
what the whole issue boils down toin base terms is that i think it would be good for those that are longterm unemployed to do a bit of volunteer work and contribute to society in whatever way, if they are unable or unwilling to find a job. you seemingly think its perfectly fine for people to give nothing back.
It's not volunteer work if it isn't voluntary. Nice but of strawman building though. If you can't meet the actual argument being made, just make some nonsense up and fight that instead.
And, once more: If the scheme is for longterm unemployed, how can you reasonably assert that those participating will be transient? It's a paradox.
analysing semantics, yawn, everyone knows whats being said here.
yet again you pick and choose the words and quotes to support your view. i said 'ideally' those doing said schemes would move on in to employment, thus it would be transient, as perhaps it would motivate people to accept jobs they otherwise dont want to do. rather than carrying massive chips on there shoulders.
whats wrong with populist ideas? the fact they are populist means the majority of people think them so it would be a good thing in most peoples view. as i said as you kow all the answers and clearly want people to put nothing back in society (no wonder the sense of community no longer exists in many places), thats fine. most people dont agree with something for nothing though.
Analysing semantics? No. Reading what you've written. Pardon me for actually taking you seriously.
The problem with populist ideas are that they're never actually thought through. The answer a supposed need without any thought to consequence. It's enough that they give the plusgood bellyfeel. Is it too much to expect people to consider things a little deeper?
And again with the "you advocate people getting something for nothing" strawman horsedung. Go on, show me just once where I said that. Or is that "analysing semantics"?
what do you believe in then.0 -
In short:
It's all a bit more complicated than a one-size-fits-all solution.
"Giving back to society" is a nebulous idea, and fuzzy in the extreme.
Basing policy decisions on examples and anecdote is bloody stupid.
There are much greater wastes and excesses in national spending than that of unemployment benefit that should also be looked at in as much detail. This won't happen for as long as there's a media and government led campaign to hang a kick-me sign around the necks of the unemployed.
Cutting benefit bills is based more in notions of right-wing economic ideology as common sense.
The existing laws on benefit fraud should be enforced much more strictly. We don't need more laws or forced labour, We need to make the present system work correctly before we can start to consider sweeping changes.
Any universal policy change is likely too broad to avoid affecting the honest jobseeker or penalising indirectly the children of welfare supported families, who's only "crime" was accident of birth.0 -
MisterMuncher wrote:In short:
It's all a bit more complicated than a one-size-fits-all solution.
"Giving back to society" is a nebulous idea, and fuzzy in the extreme.
Basing policy decisions on examples and anecdote is bloody stupid.
There are much greater wastes and excesses in national spending than that of unemployment benefit that should also be looked at in as much detail. This won't happen for as long as there's a media and government led campaign to hang a kick-me sign around the necks of the unemployed.
Cutting benefit bills is based more in notions of right-wing economic ideology as common sense.
The existing laws on benefit fraud should be enforced much more strictly. We don't need more laws or forced labour, We need to make the present system work correctly before we can start to consider sweeping changes.
Any universal policy change is likely too broad to avoid affecting the honest jobseeker or penalising indirectly the children of welfare supported families, who's only "crime" was accident of birth.
So, just to get my head round to your way of thinking, because there are more important or costly losses to the government we should not talk a kit or try to fix anything of lesser or lower values importance within our governmental system ?Living MY dream.0 -
Not what I said. Try reading. I said, pretty clearly, that other wastes were bigger, and these should have priority. They don't because there's no associated people who can be turned into media hate figures as easily as benefit claimants*. There's a reason that the other target for cuts is the Foreign Aid budget. The name is enough to ensure cretins will instantly oppose it's existence. It's all smoke and mirrors, a fiddling round the edges of the budgets because the real substantive savings are much harder to get past the press and public.
*Remember. You're living under a government who's toxic attitudes to benefit claimants (and the slavish repetition by many sectors of the media) has directly contributed to the first increase in attacks on the disabled in decaes.0 -
So the media are causing attacks on the disabled ?
I'm sure your a nice fella and have good intentions but I for one do not hate unemployed people. I don't hate anyone really but I really dislike freeloaders and that's exactly what the people who were mentioned earlier that don't intend to work are !
I am even happy paying my taxes to subsidise unemployed people. The bit I don't like is paying for people who have no intention of working.Living MY dream.0 -
I have posted in this thread a couple of times and have not advocating squeezing the level of benefit I have just stated that people should not just get a handout, but should contribute something in return. You may think that this is just a 'populist idea', but that does not mean it is wrong. What seems to annoy people is the idea that some are getting a free ride.
As regards the Foreign Aid budget, people expect their taxes, which for the most part are paid grudgingly, to be used to improve standards of living in the UK. But I am sure most people are compassionate and WOULD help the world's poverty struck and starving, but again get the impression that they have been 'had', with the money being diverted into the wrong pockets.
Yes there may be bigger savings to be made by Government, but is their job for ALL departments to be run correctly and make what savings are reasonable.0 -
Just copy & paste this bit in future.VTech wrote:I am even happy paying my taxes to subsidise unemployed people. The bit I don't like is paying for people who have no intention of working.
Clear, concise, to the point and hard to argue with.None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
VTech wrote:So the media are causing attacks on the disabled ?
Who else has been doing their damnedest to highlight benefit claimants and cast aspersions on their honesty? Do you think the increase just appeared out of the clear blue sky?
To quote one journo who quit his post during Leveson "You may have heard the phrase, 'The flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil sets off a tornado in Texas.' Well, try this: 'The lies of a newspaper in London can get a bloke's head caved in down an alley in Bradford.' "0 -
I'm no fan of media hype but taking that away, it really is a reality that many people don't wish to work so forgetting he media, I don't want to pay do them to freeload.
Ill happily pay whatever tax is deemed right by government but I do request some value for money.
I would rather pay nurses, police and firemen 20% more than someone not willin to work a single penny.
I'm not trying to show a lack of compassion, I'm only referring too the money I pay and how I would spread it given the choice.Living MY dream.0 -
just another 'let's laugh at the chavs' show, blatant scraping the barrell at 'entertainment'.0
-
nice and easy to blame the poor for their predicament, its classic tory ideology, being regurgitated by the self righteous on this thread. When an economy is based on low wages, low skills, this is inevitable side effects-- one thing about all us poor people--we spend every penny we have--- unlike the rich--all those tax' havens'-- what do they do exactly---- yes i remember, make sure the rich contribute as little as possible of their ill gotten gains --- just an aside, that 250 billion of QE would build 2.5 million homes---- the same amount that those wonderful Thatcherite policies took out of public sector--with their appeal to greed......... oh, i have been signing for nearly a year this time, still get to cycle plenty......
0 -
MisterMuncher wrote:Not what I said. Try reading. I said, pretty clearly, that other wastes were bigger, and these should have priority. They don't because there's no associated people who can be turned into media hate figures as easily as benefit claimants*. There's a reason that the other target for cuts is the Foreign Aid budget. The name is enough to ensure cretins will instantly oppose it's existence. It's all smoke and mirrors, a fiddling round the edges of the budgets because the real substantive savings are much harder to get past the press and public.
*Remember. You're living under a government who's toxic attitudes to benefit claimants (and the slavish repetition by many sectors of the media) has directly contributed to the first increase in attacks on the disabled in decaes.
at the risk of wasting yet more time on this i will carry on; so let me get this straight, you also back the foreign aid budget? giving india, for example, taht has its own forein aid budget, aid??
what do u think should be cut then?0 -
The foreign aid budget isn't simply giving money to other countries. it covers industrial development, education and export guarantees in other countries. It more than covers itself in the business it creates for British companies.
Why do you think the Tories won't cut it, despite the ravings of UKIP and various other soft-minded types? Some sense of charity they apparently only feel for foreigners?
What I reckon needs cut:
Firstly, tax loopholes need to be closed and the vast amount of taxes being bodyswerved need collected. When that happens, the country will be in a much better position to assess what is to be cut and what isn't.
Then, if there's need for more money, scrapping Trident/Renewal or creating a Europewide deterrent. It's naught but willy-waving, and it serves no rational purpose in the real world.0 -
Oh, and I've no objection to throwing actual fraudsters off the dole. I've already said that the existing rules need enforced more rigorously.
Out of interest, though: During any debate of this kidney I've seen, it's almost inevitable folks complain about person x or family y, who have been frauding the dole since forever, have the life of Riley and so on and so forth. A great deal is made of how intolerable this is. And yet they never report them. Never pick up the phone and dial the special hotline especially for the job. Y'know the one they advertise on telly, and on massive billboards?
So what's the story there, then?0 -
when it all kicks off we will want a nuclear deterrant. in a world where resources are increasingly scarce, water, food, minerals, something will kick off eventually, be it the reds, the other reds, some nutty ayatollah in the middle east or the spacemen.0
-
MisterMuncher wrote:Oh, and I've no objection to throwing actual fraudsters off the dole. I've already said that the existing rules need enforced more rigorously.
Out of interest, though: During any debate of this kidney I've seen, it's almost inevitable folks complain about person x or family y, who have been frauding the dole since forever, have the life of Riley and so on and so forth. A great deal is made of how intolerable this is. And yet they never report them. Never pick up the phone and dial the special hotline especially for the job. Y'know the one they advertise on telly, and on massive billboards?
So what's the story there, then?
ive never been north of watford so ive never seen anyone like that....0 -
its on again tonight i think, let the fun begin tomorrow!0
-
I live north of Watford.the playing mantis wrote:MisterMuncher wrote:Oh, and I've no objection to throwing actual fraudsters off the dole. I've already said that the existing rules need enforced more rigorously.
Out of interest, though: During any debate of this kidney I've seen, it's almost inevitable folks complain about person x or family y, who have been frauding the dole since forever, have the life of Riley and so on and so forth. A great deal is made of how intolerable this is. And yet they never report them. Never pick up the phone and dial the special hotline especially for the job. Y'know the one they advertise on telly, and on massive billboards?
So what's the story there, then?
ive never been north of watford so ive never seen anyone like that....
My sister uses the system like that.
We have fallen out about it but there is nothing to report as it is all legal and above board.
Much like tax avoidance.
Steps away................None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
the playing mantis wrote:
ive never been north of watford so ive never seen anyone like that....
They do say travel broadens the mind.0 -
now i cant tell if ur one of these serious types or not.0
-
VTech wrote:Cleat Eastwood wrote:People can choose to work or not - we're not put on this planet to bide our time to someone elses wishes - thankfully the attitude that a persons worth can be measured in pounds and pence is fast coming to an end and its becoming apparent that a persons worth is best left to them to define, and if it is to be defined collectively then let that persons value be how much they contribute to the massive pool of generosity, good will and support to others.
This man according to some is a waste of space. His currency is lurve
That man is a credit to society.
Just to be clear, at no point have I put a currency value on work, value is there simply because working should, if all is well afford the person the ability to house, feed and cloth themselves. Other than that money isnt the issue, its about the knowledge that you are doing something of value rather than simply existing.
Well he was a credit. Update time
"HARTFORD, Conn. – A man who has been giving free haircuts to the homeless in exchange for hugs for 25 years has been kicked out of a park by city health officials.
Anthony “Joe the Barber” Cymerys has been a fixture every Wednesday for years at Bushnell Park in Hartford, Conn., where he cuts hair and his friends hand out food to the needy.
But shortly after the 82-year-old Cymerys set up shop this week, he said, health officials and police confronted him and his friends and told them they had to leave because they didn’t have permits.
“I thought it was a drug raid, honest to God,” Cymerys said. “It was the peanut gallery on TV where everyone was watching.”
City officials had no immediate comment. A spokeswoman for Mayor Pedro Segarra said she expected to release a statement about Cymerys by the city’s Health and Human Services Department or police department later Thursday.
Cymerys, who learned how to cut hair growing up and isn’t a licensed barber, said he wasn’t completely surprised by officials’ actions because they’ve asked him before to leave the park and other areas. He hopes to continue cutting hair for free at the Immaculate Conception Shelter. He said he always takes health precautions including soaking his trimmers in alcohol.
“Twenty-five years I’ve been giving haircuts, and no one died on me,” he said.
His friends questioned the city’s actions, saying officials kicked him out of the park only a year after honouring him for his humanitarian work.
“It’s kind of ironic that a year ago the mayor was giving him a citation for all the good work he’s been doing with the homeless there and they kick us out,” said George Pfuetzner, who gives out food at the park while Cymerys cuts hair.
Pfuetzner said he was trying to get in touch with a city health official Thursday to discuss his and Cymerys’ options. They want to keep operating in the park because it’s a central location and people know they’re there.
Cymerys began giving free haircuts to the homeless in the city around 1988, when he was volunteering at a shelter. He said he met a heroin addict named Arnold who needed a haircut, so he offered his services.
“I said, ‘Geez, Arnold. Not only are you a bum, you look like a bum. How about I bring in my clippers?”‘ Cymerys recalled."The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
Thats the society we live in, the modern world eh !Living MY dream.0
