"it's not that easy to get a job straightaway, you've got to write out your CV and everything" - Britain's Long Term Unemployed

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7746174.stm

^ woman left school 28 years ago and has never done a day's work. No-one in her house works. Her daughter thinks having to prepare a CV is a barrier to finding employment.

I'm expecting great things from Have Your Say...

I sat in a KFC diner only last week, and four unemployed people sat at the same table as me lamenting how little money the state gives them even after being out of work for over a year, and how there was just no jobs to be had. Right above them on a notice board, and again by the entrance was a notice saying

"Staff Wanted, all shifts, full and part time, days, evenings and weekends, just ask a member of staff for an application".
Says it all really.

Steve Day

Recommended by 184 people

Dorms!

I accept that in a decent society we need to ensure everyone is housed, fed, clothed and has access to education and health care.

But it should stop there.

Put the long term unemployed in dormitories, feed them in canteens and hand out clothes.

If they want more in life, they should work for it like the rest of us have to.

Andrew Carter, London, United Kingdom

Recommended by 113 people

Mike hates hamsters

I'm sorry, but if you don't have a job, then you can't afford to have children, cats and a hamster. End of. Don't expect me to pay.

Mike, London
Recommended by 87 people

Reading Have Your Say isn't even funny any more, it's just profoundly depressing.

Let them watch television

I notice buying a decent televison did not 'pass you by' unlike the effort to join the army or go to college.

Tax Payer
Recommended by 85 people

^Tax Payer didn't read the article obviously, given that it mentions her son serving in the army for three and a half years.

i like the idea of dorms. if we can build some kind of self-contained dorm facilities, let's call them 'camps', then I'm sure we could even find some work for these people to do in there. we'll be helping Them and Us. it's such a simple idea i wonder why it hasn't been tried before.

You'd have to number people obviously, to make administration easier.

but what to do with the ones who can't work?

Looking at the top two threads on ILE right now, maybe we just need a rolling British thread for smugly patting ourselves on the back for being more progressive than the rest of the country.

yeah, none of that base twelve bollocks!

xpost * 2

TS: Smugness/Howling despair

Seriously though, how does one go about reducing the 3 million "workless households"? That number seems insanely high to me - maybe they're counting retired households in that.

I know a few people who have rarely worked in decades and they all have stories about how it just isn't possible for them to get/hold down a job. Their reasons always seem flimsy when put on paper but I suppose it feels bigger to them and maybe years of sitting at home nurtures a fear of the workplace.

maybe we just need a rolling British thread for smugly patting ourselves on the back for being more progressive than the rest of the country.

yes, one big thread for all 'reaction to reaction to reaction to british interest social issues' U&K now (if it wasn't before). same goes for general politics/Brown/Tories threads.

Petition for I Love Smugness board

Being more tolerant of others compared to Daily Mail/Telegraph/HYS posters is a bit like saying Mussolini was more tolerant than Hitler.

The issue of being unable to find a job that makes it worth coming off benefits is a big problem. The income of the family in the article is £270pw. If the woman found a job on minimum wage she'd get some income support/tax credit but would likely lose some benefits (e.g. Council Tax/Housing Benefit) or have them reduced so that in effect she'd be giving up 37 hours a week for little change to her income.

The "I've never missed a day's work in my life" crowd would say she should work anyway, just to pay part of her way in society, but I don't imagine it looks that appealing from her end.

(I know I kick started this with a couple of HYS quotes but I was actually hoping for a bit of discussion on the social & political issues)

maybe we just need a rolling British thread for smugly patting ourselves on the back for being more progressive than the rest of the country.

What do you suggest we should do, nod our heads and say, "Well, I don't agree with you myself, but you have a perfect right to hold that opinion and it would be arrogant and elitist of me to criticise you for doing so"? Fuck off to that.

Obv. increase the minimum wage and put the screws on employers to pay people proper wages

It comes with confidence doesn't it? If I'd been unemployed for a year my confidence at actually getting another job would be shredded, probably even more so if I had minimal education and no qualifications. I can't imagine what it would be like to be unemployed for a matter of years but I can't see how people wouldn't succumb to fatalism.

(Xpost - Tom, it was more eyerolling at what initially seemed to be yet another thread of C&Ping from HYS just to go 'idiots' with minimal comment)

I know a few people who have rarely worked in decades and they all have stories about how it just isn't possible for them to get/hold down a job. Their reasons always seem flimsy when put on paper but I suppose it feels bigger to them and maybe years of sitting at home nurtures a fear of the workplace.

Add to the workplace's fear of employing someone who hasn't held down a job in decades, and you'll find that it's a vicious circle that is very hard to get out of.

I can't believe for a second that that woman in the article went to the jobcentre as (1) a lone parent and (2) as someone who has panic attacks (therefore should be on incapacity benefit) and wasn't referred to an external agency for help. The jobcentre don't send you letters if something comes up, so that's a ton of BS right there. Also, this "i'm too old to sign on at 43" bollocks will stop sharpish when she stops being eligible for income support and it's sign on or get no money at all.

xpost onimo OTM about the financial benefits of coming off work. I don't have access to the exact figures any more, but based on similar circumstances, she'd be maybe about £50 better off overall.

So how long can someone claim "job seeker's allowance"? I assume this is like the US's "unemployment benefits". Ours has just been extended to an average of 10 months total (I think) and there's limitations on when you can reapply after that.

There are definitely larger issues at play here than just availability of jobs (untreated health issues, lack of training even for job-hunting) but I wonder how much of long-term joblessness could be caused by government-enabling.

Add to the workplace's fear of employing someone who hasn't held down a job in decades

OTM

(2) as someone who has panic attacks (therefore should be on incapacity benefit)

You won't get incapacity benefit for panic attaks

Aye you will.

So how long can someone claim "job seeker's allowance"?

I think it's 26 weeks. That's how much it was in 2002 when I was on it, anyway. The Fun Seeker's Allowance is unlimited however.

What do you suggest we should do, nod our heads and say, "Well, I don't agree with you myself, but you have a perfect right to hold that opinion and it would be arrogant and elitist of me to criticise you for doing so"? Fuck off to that.

go and say it to their face instead of muttering it under our breath sneakily, hoping they don't overhear and then beat us up

So how long can someone claim "job seeker's allowance"?

If you're keen to stay on it, it's pretty much unlimited, though it gets more of a hassle. I've done periods of 3.5 years and (twice) 2.5 years. The jobcentre you have to go to makes a difference to how bearable it. I got sick of it a couple of years ago - it's a young man's game -but I know someone who's been doing it for fifteen years, though he is an abominable moocher.

Obv. increase the minimum wage and put the screws on employers to pay people proper wages

Sounds easy but a) can employers afford it? (and I know this was the question when it was introduced - maybe we're seeing the long term effects of the answer being "no") and b) how do you persuade a politician to follow this path when it's clear that "cut their benefits and FORCE them into jobs (that may or may not exists)" is the clear vote winner with the HYS/Mail/cunt crowd?

(xpost) It basically can go round in circles indefinitely. Depending on the area you live in, you'll be sent off on "training courses", the length of which increases with the amount of time you've been unemployed. I think that after 6-12 months you get sent on a three day course, then a year after that a 13 week "Intensive Activity Programme", which means sitting in a room looking at newspapers and occasionally getting to use a computer. And remember, all the time you're claiming JSA, you're not counted as unemployed. You are not part of the monthly unemployment totals.

>can employers afford it?

I'm always suspicious of this argument because what's the definition of "afford"? I question whether people higher up on the food chain would be willing to cut their own incomes in order to provide a better one for people below them.

>you're not counted as unemployed. You are not part of the monthly unemployment totals.

Wow, how high would it be if you were, I wonder.

Is that true? I thought unemployment figures (as opposed to 'incapacity' or whatever) were defined as the number of people claiming JSA? How do they measure it otherwise?

woman left school 28 years ago and has never done a day's work. No-one in her house works. Her daughter thinks having to prepare a CV is a barrier to finding employment.

my sympathy machine is working overload here, i have to say.

the point about minimum wage employment simply not adding up is also a good one. maybe the real answer is to cut benefits?

the 'unemployment' figures are just the people that not even the government can find any excuses for.

The Labour Force Survey, isn't it?

xpost

(xxpost) sorry, I got that wrong. People claiming JSA are counted towards the unemployment totals. People who are claiming JSA and are also on a 13 week IAP course do not count towards the totals, despite being just as unemployed. The same applies if you are unemployed and on any kind of training scheme whatsoever.

If you're keen to stay on it, it's pretty much unlimited, though it gets more of a hassle. I've done periods of 3.5 years and (twice) 2.5 years. The jobcentre you have to go to makes a difference to how bearable it. I got sick of it a couple of years ago - it's a young man's game -but I know someone who's been doing it for fifteen years, though he is an abominable moocher.

― Eyeball Kicks, Tuesday, December 2, 2008 10:15 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

what in the hell

go and say it to their face instead of muttering it under our breath sneakily, hoping they don't overhear and then beat us up

I would, if someone said it to my face, I trust you would too

This fucking country, man.

In general.

(xxxxpost) Example: you're claiming JSA but are also being sent to, say, adult literacy classes? Bing! You're not officially unemployed! Despite not having a job.

maybe the real answer is to cut benefits?

Yes obviously the answer is to fuck over those in genuine need in order to convince lazy/demotivated people to get back to work.

Sounds easy but a) can employers afford it? (and I know this was the question when it was introduced - maybe we're seeing the long term effects of the answer being "no")

You think the minimum wage has led to unemployment? I don't, but if there's any proof that it has...

Peter "One Dart" Manley otm :(

x-post

Perhaps in terms of that at a certain point you can't make enough at minimum wage to offset the costs of working. e.g childcare

Susan, there's a tax credit system in the UK that covers that - no idea how effectively.

what in the hell

This is not really that unusual. When you add in all the benefits you get for being unemployed, especially if you have kids and would need to fund childcare to get back to work, you are maybe looking at an average weekly increase in your income of about £30. Would YOU do 37 hours work for that?

You think the minimum wage has led to unemployment? I don't, but if there's any proof that it has...

I think the turnover/paybill ratio of any company is a factor in its success and there seem to be a lot of companies failing and unemployment is rising by any stick you choose to measure it with.
I'm not saying the minimum wage is a direct cause but if you're struggling with a small company and all your staff have to get pay rises because the government says so it must make you consider whether you can afford to continue employing everyone.

Yes obviously the answer is to fuck over those in genuine need in order to convince lazy/demotivated people to get back to work.

matt, there are no lazy, demotivated people! shame on you.

the real problem is the diagnosis of people that can't work- and it's far, far too easy to get on that list.

re: childcare- i know in ireland you can write off a certain amount of costs involved in going BTW, but it's nowhere near sufficient.

Put the long term unemployed in dormitories, feed them in canteens and hand out clothes.

I wouldn't mind this, I'm on under-25s JSA (£47.50 a week!!) and can't afford to both heat my house and eat. What's the rationale for the cutoff for that rate being 25 and not, say, based on circumstances?

That's what they said when they first introduced the minimum wage and I've never seen any proof to suggest that substantial numbers of business went under as a result (xposts)

Sorry, Grimly. I remember you saying not too long ago you'd made a sacrifice in your work-life in order to do something more meaningful. I'd hate to think that was a bad decision, now, but hey, gotta look ahead not behind anyway.

man, sorry grimly. i know a good double handful of people out of work at the moment, in a range of industries (although concentrated in media). i expect i'll know even more by this time next year. (assuming i'm not among them, which is always possible.) it's gonna get transatlantic ugly.

Media industry's crazy right now. Back in February there were 50/55 jobs on national magazines on Gorkana. Currently there's nine.

Media Guardian thinner than I've ever seen it as well.

I dunno, in terms of London there seem to be quite a few media jobs, though that said I've been applying for stuff for about 4 weeks and no interviews yet. But the jobs are there. I feel v lucky to have BBC internal jobs available to me on top of reading the papers etc...

i'm tempted to sack off my admin job and just sign on benefits for depression or something. if the gov pays my rent, then i shouldn't be too out of pocket.

Sorry to hear, grimly, and good luck.

Going back some time here, but:
you people do realise there is no fucking excuse in this day and age for a person to be out of work for any period over, say, ten days, right? If you want to piss and moan that all the jobs out there are "beneath you", fine

Doesn't matter what "you" think, if the employer thinks the job might be "beneath you" (e.g. person with experience of supposed skilled professional career applying for temping, retail, manual work), your CV goes in the bin under the assumption that you wouldn't accept anyway / you'll quit after a week / there must be something terribly wrong with you to consider a change of career.

Which ain't great if your industry is going down the shitter, or you're so specialised that your exact role is rare, or you just plain don't like it and want a change.

Gravel Puzzleworth: note that if you sign on the NI contributions for a state pension are paid, and they won't be if you don't. You might get a letter prompting you to top it up at the end of the tax year though (got one of these from a few years back, must deal with it as it expires soon).

I've heard of people who sign on even though they have too many savings to get benefits, just to have their pension contribution paid. (I don't know if they still make you fill in all the paperwork and apply you for jobs which are never going to phone back because of that career suspicion thing up there. If so, doesn't really seem worth the hassle, but hey...)

that sucks grimly.

i've just had a very strange phonecall offering my christmas work at woolies. this should be ok to take yes?

Well, unless they do a fopp, and 1 day after christmas, shut all the shops and tell the employees to go apply to the official receivere for their pay...

sure.

Doesn't matter what "you" think, if the employer thinks the job might be "beneath you" (e.g. person with experience of supposed skilled professional career applying for temping, retail, manual work), your CV goes in the bin under the assumption that you wouldn't accept anyway / you'll quit after a week / there must be something terribly wrong with you to consider a change of career.

Which ain't great if your industry is going down the shitter, or you're so specialised that your exact role is rare, or you just plain don't like it and want a change.

Sorry to hear, grimley, I saw the report in the report in the paper and thought of you.

Thanks, everyone, for your kind words: I'm genuinely touched.

To be honest: whatever happens, I'll make the best of it. What else can I do? I've not got nearly enough information to work out what I'm going to do yet ... in some ways this limbo period is going to be the worst time (and is bound to make for an, er, unique office atmosphere over the next couple of weeks).

Whatever happens: I'm young(ish), dependent-free and have minimal outgoings. It's the older staff I really feel for. Negotiations, however, are ongoing ... we'll see what transpires.

Thanks again, though.

More sympathies Grimly. I know several people who have be "released" lately. My boyfriend, after 13 years with his company, was told his job was being transferred to Asia and he would be no longer needed.

To be honest: whatever happens, I'll make the best of it. What else can I do?

This is a good attitude, hold on to it. It sounds cliched but things like this often lead you to something better in the end.

Commiserations to your boyfriend, Susan: that's heartily sucky.

I should also point out that I'm not the only ILX0r affected by this (although I'm probably the most active poster at the moment).

I read that as "attractive" at first.

Oh, of course. That's a given.

(Actually: it's really not. But hey. Positive mental attitude in every aspect, and all that.)

Good luck stet too?

The main non-Murdoch newspaper publisher here recently rolled out 550 redundancies – inc 70 from the Sydney broadsheet and 55 from their Melbourne one – they aimed for voluntaries, but had two few reporters putting their hands up. So to meet the management quota, casual subs (of years’ standing) were offered ongoing jobs as reporters on the condition that they immediately take redundancy...

I had to read that twice to check I was understanding it properly. It seemed too utterly fucking crazy at first.

Wow. That's ... beyond fucked-up.

Sorry Simon, I've been lax with keeping up with this thread, a bloody shame but I hope you manage to get something out of it, even if not necessarily within the Record.

Back in 1980 I was offered (unsolicited) an apprenticeship as a journalist with the Herald but turned it down since at the time I was keener to get to Oxford and university. I've no idea what the current situation is with them but I still think I made the right decision.

Yeah, I went for a trainee journo post at our local paper.

Didn't get it, never regretted it.

I've no idea what the current situation is with them but I still think I made the right decision

Oh, you did!

Thanks again for your kind words. If anyone's interested in the details of this malarkey and can be arsed digging it out on iPlayer: Newsnight Scotland did a big "ooh shit the Scottish media's fucked, isn't it?" special last night.

I'm presuming Pat Kane turns up at some point...

... like a bad smell?

Heheh. I'm in touch with Pat still; I think he's well out of the Herald loop. To be honest, I'm not sure Newsnicht would even have bothered to contact him; if they did, I'm pretty much 99% sure he'd have said no. And been bloody glad about it.

ooh shit the Scottish media's fucked, isn't it?"

^ Absolutely true, but a) BBC Scotland parochialism; b) we're fucked at an interesting and exciting new level now.

(woolies obviously didn't work out. i wasn't expecting it to, really. its just a bit of a kick in the teeth when the only job offer i've had in forever is from a sinking ship. so glad i still have government funding.)

Sorry to hear that, but it's maybe for the best. Would have been interesting, certainly ;)

Hey Simon, hope you get fixed up quickly. I'm also unemployed, it's shit but there are the days where you feel happy to be doing nothing. FRIDAYS AND SUNDAYS!

(sundays because of having monday off, of course)

Ach, they've not booted us out on the streets just yet! That's the thing: they've not even issued us with redundancy statements. Despite how this has been reported (yeh, yeh, typical fucking media), the official line is that each and every job is "at risk of redundancy"; those of us who aren't re-hired on new contracts are out the door.

The question, as proposed on Newsnicht last night, was: er, if people aren't actively redundant, why are you wanting them all to apply for a reduced number of new jobs? Difficult one to answer, that.

At the moment we're in limbo, waiting for a) the list of new jobs; b) new Ts&Cs; c) notice of redundancy.

that seems like a really horrible way of dealing with things

if people aren't actively redundant, why are you wanting them all to apply for a reduced number of new jobs?

jesus yeah- where's the legal standpoint on that?

My understanding is that you can only legally be made redundant if your current post is going to cease to exist. I'm sure there's a million clever work-arounds for that tho.

so the new workers aren't going to be doing anything that they currently do. hm.

Sorry, been tied up with other stuff and neglecting my ILX duties ... no, hang on, that's not the attitude ... yes, fundamentally "clever workarounds" is exactly it. I've heard a whole heap of theories and so on in the last couple of days, none of which (obviously) I'm keen to go into on a public forum.

Darraghmac: that's one for the NUJ to consider, certainly.

Ultimately: it's actually all too utterly weird/unprecedented to get a handle on. And right now I'm still totally in the dark about any of it. All I know is we're expected -- in the short term -- to carry on working as usual!

At least there is the promise of new C on T's to look forward to

Way to go for Cameron to win the next election, not.

The Tory programme, modelled on a German scheme

chortle

'The Shannon Matthews case was a horrendous extreme and in no way typical, but it raises the curtain on a way of life in some of our most deprived estates, of entire households blah blah blah,' said Grayling.

They have work schemes for long term unemplyed here in Aus... they don't work terribly well. While I was on the dole some years back I *wanted* to use every program I could to make finding jobs easier - I figured hey, going to a free service where they'll sit down and chat to me and adjust a set of jobs to suit, sounds awesome! People pay rectruitment firms to do similar!

Of course in practice, they're hopeless. I didnt get any jobs that even *remotely* matched my skillset, but you're not supposed to turn down jobs sent to you. Luckily the ones they offered me (working in a printing factory out in the sticks!?) were so far off base I didnt even get asked to interviews but still. They focus purely on lower-run job stuff like shop staff, factory workers, etc. No one in IT or admin or other skilled professions wants to go anywhere near the welfare jobseek agencies... they all just use Seek and Monster.com and recruiters.

You'd think the dole office could work in conjuntion with actual recruiters and Seek and whatnot but thats too logical.

Certainly in this country, back to work schemes are awarded to contractors purely on results, and funded accordingly (i.e. those who can get people into work and people into sustained employment, which is more than 13 weeks off benefits) they concentrate on the lowest skilled people and the equivalent jobs because they are easier to get results from - people go into a call centre/factory for one day and that's your result, way easier hit rate than having to actually wait for someone to go through a proper interview process for a real job. None of them actually give much of a fuck about your long-term prospects, they are just after their own.

Trayce, my youngest brother is having exactly that problem with social services. He's autistic, so he has trouble finding jobs on his own, but the social services people really have no idea what's available apart from one janitorial work programs for more severely disabled people. They gave him interview training, which is useful, but in terms of actually connecting him with employers who are willing to hire people with disabilities...well, they got him a 2 hour a week job doing manual labor and consider that "employed." It's incredibly frustrating that they consider that a success, when clearly the goal of helping someone find employment should be to eventually give them means to support themselves.

Meanwhile, "Labour" decides also to put the boot into the easiest and weakest targets.

No mention of clamping down on the billions squirrelled away in offshore accounts.

People trying to survive get stamped upon; casino capitalists get a free pass.

If they just got rid of the pointless VAT additions this wouldn't be a problem.

Tabloid bullies rule once more.

Well, on GMTV they were talking about 'cash in hand' builders/contractors in a new light..

The building expert was "they should reduce VAT on 'refurbs' ('new builds are 0 rated) to 5% so peoeple would actually pay for real. (The builders do not profit from collecting 17.5% (as was) and the client can't reclaim it like a client business can.

The rep from the etaxpayeres alliance actually agreed.

Then thingy castle bloke says "oh and those big businesses that have whole departments DEVOTED to avoiding paying slightly more tax than they have to!"

Ah, fair cheered me up for once.

Ah, I'd gone out of the house by the time that came on but well done them!

Those most likely to avoid paying taxes include self-employed people who receive cash payments such as builders, individuals who trade on the internet and buy to let landlords.

Are you fucking kidding me?

anything about freelance music journalists?

there are more builders.

(aren't there?)

Maybe the 25,000 job cuts at HMRC mean it's more cost-effective to go sfter the easy targets?