Sunday, 16 August 2009

Am I a benefit scrounger?

Am I a benefit scrounger?


Unemployed Amazon reviewer

I've been accused of fraud

Not everybody thinks that I am a benefit scrounger, but one person made clear that he or she thinks that I am not just a benefit scrounger but a fraudster too, by accusing me on a different blog - anonymously, of course. I reproduce those comments and my replies here, modified as appropriate without changing the tone or meaning, to include links and to fit the context of this page.

What a sad Muppet you are. Get off your fat lazy arse and find a job. How the hell can you afford all these Amazon purchases out of your incapacity benefit? Perhaps you should be reported for dole fraud.

I responded ....

I'd love to find a job, but it wasn't easy for me even before the current recession. If you suffer the misfortune of losing your job, you might begin to understand the problems.

I explain everything in detail in this blog, including how I acquired (and continue to acquire) the stuff I review on Amazon. But since you can't be bothered to read it (you don't even know which benefits I'm receiving), I'll summarise by saying that most of the stuff I review was bought in the days when I had a job and plenty of money and I bought some of the rest by making lots of sacrifices and by bargain-hunting. I also borrow stuff I review, especially from Leicester public library. Just because I've reviewed something doesn't mean I bought it, nor that even if I did buy it, that I paid the quoted price.

Oh yes, and I see that you choose to remain anonymous. I don't, which I would do if I were committing fraud. It's very easy for the government to identify me from the information available on the net.

You can report benefit theft if you think you have a case against me, but the government may take action against anybody who wastes their time by malicious accusations such as your accusation against me would be.

Actually, it seems that I was wrong on the point about malicious reporting, because the government accepts anonymous complaints; however, I suspect that they are likely to take complaints more seriously if people are willing to give their name and contact details. As the report benefit theft form itself says, that allows follow-up questions to be asked. If your information is anonymous and the government feels that there is insufficient to launch an investigation, they can't do anything.

I later added ....

Just to add - If anybody would genuinely like to help me get a job, I'll be willing to consider such help. Better still, if you have some vacancies that I might be suitable for, please offer me an interview.

I don't suppose it ever occurred to my accuser to ask his or her employer to consider me for a job.

Much later, I discovered that a different Peter Harris was director of The Muppet Show, but I don't think my accuser knew that. Still, it is slightly amusing.

Further analysis

I could have said a lot more, but it's unlikely that my accuser bothered to read even what I already said and in any case probably didn't expect me to allow the accusation to be posted. However, it's worth looking more closely at the assumptions behind that accusation. Of course, I don't know exactly what my accuser was thinking, but let's look at some possibilities; there may be others.

Out of work means never worked?

It is possible, though hard to credit in these harsh economic times, that my accuser thinks that anybody who is out of work has never worked. Maybe my accuser read enough to know that I was out of work before the recession and assumes that such people have never worked, or maybe assumes that anybody who loses a job should forfeit everything they own if they don't find another job quickly. Even Bankruptcy doesn't force people to give up everything - only valuables such as cars and houses, which can be sold to pay creditors. Even then, they only take enough to pay the creditors. Still, you would think that people would re-evaluate their prejudices in the recession. A lot of well-qualified people lost their jobs because of it.

Lifestyle

Maybe my accuser assumed that I continue to lead the kind of life that he or she has, but also buys all those books and music as well. In My lifestyle, I describe how I've adjusted to unemployment, explaining some of the sacrifices I've had to make to be able to continue buying books and music. Other unemployed people make different sacrifices to allow them to do different things. We all have different priorities.

Amazon's reviewing system

Like most people, my accuser doesn't understand the Amazon reviews system, having referred to my supposed Amazon purchases. Sure, I've bought stuff from Amazon but those purchases only account for a minority of my reviews. Amazon do not have a rule saying that you have to buy products through Amazon to review them; that's another of my accuser's misconceptions. Amazon do require you to have a purchasing history (one purchase in your lifetime is sufficient qualification) before you can start reviewing, but this wasn't always the case.

Reviews appearing in magazines and newspapers are limited to recent releases. Amazon allows people to review anything they like, however old, as long as it is listed on Amazon. Because Amazon allows third-party sellers to sell used goods through Amazon, that means it is even possible to review books, CDs and vinyl LPs that went out of print before Amazon came into existence. As such, it is possible for anybody to work through their collection of books and music reviewing just about everything they own - and a lot of what is in their local library too. It is also possible to review stuff owned by family and friends.

Note that if you're planning to review out of print products, it's always advisable to check that they're listed on Amazon first; even Amazon don't list everything. As it is, I try to post my reviews in both the UK and Amazon USA but I am sometimes only able to post in one or the other, although I sometimes discover months or years later that I can post a review at the site that I couldn't originally.

It's worth noting that even if I posted anonymously on Amazon, that wouldn't hide my identity from the government. I'm sure that Amazon would disclose customer details to the government in exceptional circumstances that would include fraud allegations. Maybe they would only do so in response to a court order, but they would do it then. Anonymity always arouses suspicions, so the government would be more likely to investigate me if I tried to hide my identity. Yes, if they want to investigate me, it's better that I am completely open, which is another reason (though not the main one) for using my full name on the internet.

Report genuine fraudsters

I support the reporting of genuine fraudsters, which is why I supply the link here to report benefit theft. Those people damage the reputations of all unemployed people, as my accuser illustrates by appearing to imply that all unemployed people are bad. However, I hear and read about people who feel that their complaints are not investigated. I wonder if this is because the government is swamped by complaints from people jumping to conclusions, just as my accuser did. If the government has to waste time investigating me, it means they aren't investigating some other case.

Before you report benefit theft, I ask that you at least have reasonable grounds for suspicion. If you are able to present detailed evidence rather than scurrilous allegations, your complaint is more likely to be taken seriously. Fraud is a serious issue, but the vast majority of benefit claimants are not fraudsters.

Report me?

Somebody may be stupid enough to report me, but if you're thinking of so doing, remember that I'm half-expecting it. As such, I keep my bank statements to show that I have no other income, just as I keep all my e-mails relating to job applications. Having been through a Bankruptcy, there is no way that I can have multiple bank accounts. If I have to, I am confident that I can defend myself. As I inch ever closer to being pensioned off, I certainly have no wish to do anything that would interfere with my retirement. Would I have really exposed myself so publicly if I were committing fraud?

The police came

On October 31st in the year 2011, I got a knock on my door at around 3.20 a.m. The police wanted to know if I live alone, and they took a look around. So it seems that somebody was stupid enough, or malicious enough, to report me. I was awake at the time as I don't actually sleep much these days anyway, and that was the Monday following the weekend when the clocks switched from summer time to Greenwich mean time. I never heard any more from them.

The persistent threat

Long before this episode happened, I knew that the authorities were looking for any excuse to force people off benefits. I live from day to day with the background fear that an excuse will be found to stop my benefits. As I have no way to borrow money, I have no idea how I would cope, but I'll have to face the situation if it happens.

Among the first things I would do would be to cancel the telephone. That won't stop my internet activities as I can use the local library. I sometimes do that anyway, but I have a memory stick and I can do a lot of stuff offline and transfer stuff between home and the library if I need to. I need the telephone in case employers or agencies want to call me, but if my benefits are cut or stopped I'll have to stop the telephone. Since the authorities want me to find a job, this is nonsensical but the authorities don't care.

I would also stop buying books and music, but they are my only luxury. I stopped buying during my previous financial problems so while it's a nuisance, I can cope with that. I can live frugally if I have to, but I need food, clothes, electricity, water and a roof over my head. I have heard of people having all their benefits stopped for two months just because of forgetting to do something. If I were to lose jobseeker's allowance for a couple of months, that would be tough but I could cope by cutting off the telephone and not buying anything that is not essential to basic survival. If my housing benefit were also stopped, there is no way that I could cope without help from charities or whatever. I would be entering unknown territory, but I have found a way through life's problems so far and I hope I would get through life's problems again.

March 2013

If I don't get a job before then, I'll be pensioned off on March 6th, 2013. That won't stop the authorities checking up on me, but the improved income will allow me to build up a reserve for contingencies.

Overview

The politics of unemployment


This is not a diary-type blog

As I explain in a separate blog titled Blog setup, my Blogger blogs are really a series of websites within the blog framework. As such, I update pages with new information as I would if they were set up as part of a standard website, so the information is more up to date than the page dates suggest. When I need to insert lots of new pages, it requires a major reorganization, as I did to this blog in October 2008 and again, less dramatically, in August 2009.

Although you can navigate this blog in any way you choose, there is a lot of cross-linking between pages, as well as a multitude of links to external websites and blogs, so I recommend that on the first time through, you read it like a book, ignoring all the links except the Next page links until you reach the end (thus ensuring that you don't miss anything), then (if you wish) go back and explore whichever un-visited links interest you.

Why I set up this blog

My primary motivation in setting up this blog in January 2008 was to highlight the folly that was the New Deal scheme, but I also covered other issues such as housing and finance. Different and apparently unrelated policies of local councils, banks and the government can combine in the most pernicious way to make life much harder for people on low incomes, including those with jobs as well as unemployed people, than need be the case. Frank Field's proposal to scrap New Deal was well meaning but, based on that article, even he doesn't really understand the full extent of the problem. Only those who have actually suffered truly understand.

New Deal was replaced by Flexible New Deal, which in turn was replaced by the Work Programme. While some of the details are different, the fundamental problems are the same. All these schemes make it look as if something is being done to help the unemployed, but don't succeed in actually doing that. I haven't seen much need to update this blog to reflect on those differences because nothing has really changed for me.

The government

Let me make it clear that when I refer to the government, it can refer to either the Labour administration that was voted out in 2010 or the coalition that replaced it. Politicians of all parties have a certain contempt for the unemployed and while their policies on welfare issues may differ in some respects, their basic attitude towards unemployed people means that the differences are sometimes hard to discern. Yes, there are disagreements about some issues, but while, for example, there may be a big argument about capping certain benefits, I think the arguments are more about the level of the caps rather than the principle. Actually, I think caps on some benefits may be a good idea, but only if the limits are set sensibly. There will, of course, be other issues on which both the government and opposition basically agree a policy in the main detail, but which I cannot endorse in any circumstances.

July 2008 proposals

The proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 designed to replace New Deal generated a lot of debate, which caused me to re-assess this blog. I decided that it was necessary to cover a lot of issues that I'd previously not included, culminating in my October 2008 blog reorganization. Also in October 2008, I created a separate blog titled The nineties job quest that focuses exclusively on my first long period of unemployment, removing all the detailed information about that period from within this blog and my related Career blog while inserting links to them from this blog.

How I got into this mess

The nineties job quest lasted from February 1990 to June 1998. I lived off my former wealth for most of that period, only signing on for jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit when I was heavily in debt (no scrounging there) in May 1996. Note also that the mere fact that I actually found work again after that length of time shows how hard I was trying.

I became redundant again in December 2002, having learned no major new skills that would have made it easy to get another job, so I was into my second long period of unemployment, which has been a very different experience from The nineties job quest. At around the end of April 2011 it equalled that quest in terms of duration. It will end on March 6th, 2013, if I don't find work before then, because on that dat I qualify for pension credits and will no longer count as unemployed. I could still look for work after that, but I won't be forced to.

The period since my last redundancy has been just as eventful as The nineties job quest, perhaps more so. I haven't moved to a different home (though I had an eviction order served on me, later retracted), but I have been through a Bankruptcy and had problems with Housing benefits and government policies (especially New Deal) that are supposed to help unemployed people back to work but which in practice have severely hampered my efforts in that direction.

My career

My related Career blog, which covers the time that I spent working in great detail, looks at possible options for an alternative career and explains why some are completely unsuitable for me and why it is too late at my age (I was born in 1951) to consider some careers that I might be suited to. Some people see my analysis as a list of excuses for not getting back to work, but they don't understand. I'd love to return to paid work, but employers just aren't interested in me. If I apply for jobs within my traditional area, I fail because my skills are obsolete. If I apply for other types of job, I fail because other people have more experience in those areas or because they are young and seen as better trainee prospects. This blog explores those issues in detail.

My certificates

My Certificates blog contains pictures of my GCE, CSE and other certificates for any employer who may require proof that I really did pass those exams.

My blog too depressing?

Some people see this blog in particular as depressing, but that is the nature of it. It is impossible to write about problems of any kind without sounding depressing, but I have put in a few lighter touches here and there. I didn't want to overdo this aspect in case any employer thought I was being frivolous, but having learned that even employers find this blog too depressing, I'll keep on the lookout for other ways in which to lighten the gloom. This won't be easy to do while remaining focused on the points that I'm trying to make, so it will be a gradual process.

Taking responsibility

When it suits their case, politicians like to say that people should take responsibility for their own actions. As I make clear in the remainder of this blog, I am frequently prevented from doing things that will give me the best chance of finding work by being forced to do things that won't help me. This effectively transfers responsibility to the government, since I am limited in my ability to decide my own actions and the agencies that I deal with are doing what the government tells them. Any attempt to tell people in authority that their policies are wrong only serves to reinforce their suspicions that unemployed people are no good.

One of the interesting things about The nineties job quest is that I was left to my own devices and therefore able to decide for myself how to go about finding work. How things have changed since those days.

The obstacle course

Now, it may be that I'm not a typical unemployed person and that these policies work for some people. They may even work for a lot of people, as the government claims, but they definitely work against me. Even if they work for a lot of people (and let's see the evidence), it is necessary to allow some flexibility in the system to ensure that all unemployed people have the best possible chance of getting back to work, including myself.

I hoped that the 2008 banking crisis would presage greater flexibility, as many more graduates, office workers and managers joined the ranks of the unemployed, but I have seen no evidence of this as yet, at least partly due to employers and employees agreeing to protect jobs by making them part time. Meanwhile, the shortage of money caused by the 2008 banking crisis has caused the government to cut back severely on welfare spending of all types. In any case, any change will be too little and too late to make much difference to my situation. I'll never give up, but my prospects are bleak.

Sometimes, I sense that people think that as I'm out of work, I am obviously clueless and shouldn't argue with them when they tell me what to do. They don't know about my past and don't allow me time to explain, although even if they gave me the time, they probably wouldn't understand anyway.

I wanted to build on the experience gained from successfully returning to work at the end of The nineties job quest, but I was never able to carry out my plans. I wish that I could have had some genuine help in identifying a new career or re-establishing my old one. In the absence of such help, I wish that I could have just been left to do things my way. I'll never know if either of these strategies would have worked, but the one I've been forced to go along with definitely hasn't worked.

A question of confidence

Even in my bleakest moments during The nineties job quest, I always felt that I was going to get back to work again. Although it fluctuated, my confidence generally increased as time went on. As 1998 began, I just knew that it was going to be my year because the momentum seemed unstoppable.

This time around, I still felt confident up to the summer of 2005. After that, political interference accelerated and my confidence gradually ebbed away. A curious paradox of the policies espoused by both the Conservatives and Labour parties is that these policies serve only to undermine the confidence of people like myself, who genuinely want to work, yet politicians are always quick to proclaim that self-confidence is an essential requirement for getting back to work after being unemployed for any length of time.

While I won't give up looking for work, I don't feel confident about finding a job by conventional methods. That's another reason for expending so much effort on this blog. My Amazon reviews occasionally arouse the interest of the News media, although journalists' preconceptions about unemployed people mean that they are not interested in my experiences of being out of work; that was evident in the way that most of them treated me before. Maybe I can somehow arouse the interest of employers or, if not, raise awareness of the issues in other ways.

Employers and others notice my internet presence

Occasionally, an employer sees something that I've done on the internet and contacts me, but so far these offers have not been suitable for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, I appreciate the interest and it shows what is possible. An employer who approaches me in this way has clearly seen something positive, whereas an employer who sees a CV hasn't.

I was invited to participate in the How's my feedback? research project, and presented a slide show, for which I provide background and supporting information in Slide show notes. I met a lot of high-powered people there, but none of them were able to provide a way for me to get back to work although several thought that there should be a job for me somewhere.

What are we?

Organised religion calls us sinners. Employers call us human resources. (Just occasionally, I still see the word personnel, which was once standard but is now extremely rare.) Government calls us taxpayers. Business calls us consumers. We are therefore of value in this life only to the degree that we grovel, work, pay taxes and buy stuff.

An emotive subject

If you doubt the strength of public hostility towards benefit scroungers, just do a Google search for benefit scroungers. The McFadden family case and others like it fuel public hostility, but the vast majority of unemployed people are hostile to the McFadden family too. Typical of the attitude by those who don't understand the issues is this comment that I found on Indymedia UK.

There is an easy solution to your dilemna, stop accepting the benefits and you will be free to do what you like. I, too, am trapped here for 40 - 48 hours a week. I can't do what I want. I have to wear clothes to fit in, but at the end of the day I get paid so I put up with it. And what's more, 40% of what I earn is paid to you.

Let's see how that critic manages if he ends up on the unemployment scrapheap. Given that he is currently on a high rate of income tax, he would find it tougher than most of us, unless he can get another job quickly. Of course, his comment is wildly exaggerated. His 40% tax contributes to spending on a whole range of public services, not just welfare. Furthermore, most of the welfare budget is used up in the overheads. Yes, the cost of running the services to pay out benefits is greater than the amount paid out in benefits.

Look at this survey of the UK's top 100 most annoying things. I console myself with the knowledge, confirmed by the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service? (often mentioned in this blog but sadly no longer available online), that most people who despise benefit scroungers don't know enough about the subject to form a balanced opinion. Even more interesting is the contrast with a more recent poll. I guess this proves that it all depends on timing. Whatever irritation is in the news tops the poll. On that later poll, benefit scroungers don't even make the top 100.

Just a delusion

I suspect that the public and politicians alike start from the point of view that if people are not doing anything to earn their benefits, they might as well be doing something. Unfortunately, the public and politicians don't appreciate the cost of administration of schemes to make unemployed people do something to earn their benefits. Furthermore, the extra administrators employed are rarely drawn from the ranks of the unemployed.

Some workers appear to be jealous of the unemployed, but if they had to live off benefits, they would realise that it's not a life of luxury, though my Amazon reviews make it appear that I have a better lifestyle than I actually do. The idea that unemployed people don't do anything useful with their time (based on the visibility of those who hang around street corners) make the idea of forcing unemployed people to do something seem appealing to those who have always found employment, though my Amazon reviews and my other internet activities show that I, at least, have found ways to make use of whatever time I have available. Ideally, I would like to have spent much more time on training that would have improved my chances of finding work.

Lack of re-training

So why have I been out of work for so long despite actively seeking work? Apart from prejudice against unemployed people based on the usual Stereotypes, as well as ageism in my own case, the short answer is that I need re-training, whether that be for a different career or to obtain some computer programming skills relevant to the current marketplace.

Government policies do not help me. Indeed, some of their policies including New Deal actually make life more difficult for me. I have been told that having been out of work since December 2002, there's been plenty of time outside of New Deal when I could have got re-trained. Well, I have had some re-training, but nothing like as much as I would have liked due to various factors that I'll explain in detail later. At my age, any re-training I now do is unlikely to make much difference. It's really quite a long story and that's why this blog is so necessary.

The placement agencies

Note that the placement agency links now point to Intraining, but it took over the offices and staff of Carter and Carter, who went into administration early in 2008. Carter and Carter had themselves taken over Fern in a more conventional manner a few years earlier, I have been assigned to all three at different times, as well as Working Links, but I have not been impressed by any of them. After all, they'll also carry out the government's policies just as before. So far, Intraining have not put me on a placement. They tried but couldn't find one. Now they seem to have given up, as they no longer arrange appointments for me at their offices, but tell me when they will phone me. They clearly want to focus on people who they think are more likely to get a job.

Most people find work quickly

The reality is that most people who are made redundant manage to find work again quickly, as I did on the first two occasions that I suffered that fate in 1981 and 1988 (and in the second case, I didn't even bother signing on for jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit), but those that don't find work quickly find it extremely hard however much they want it. With the help of acute staff shortages caused by Y2K, I performed a miracle once before as The nineties job quest illustrates, but things are very different for me now.

With jobs now almost as elusive as Lord Lucan became following the murder of Sandra Rivett, even those who have become unemployed recently are finding things tough. My chances seem to be more remote than ever, although I came close to securing a part-time job in July 2009.

I offer possible solutions

Sometimes, I offer possible solutions to the problems I highlight. I know that no government is likely to go back to the hands-off approach that prevailed in the last millennium any time soon, though that may happen eventually if politicians realise that intervention isn't cost-effective. They and the bureaucrats don't always know what's best for individuals. Punish the lazy people if you must, but please offer constructive help to those who want to return to work while allowing them to choose their own way forward within reason.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but through my experience of two long periods out of work, I have seen a lot of things and I hope that somebody will take my ideas and opinions seriously. Even if it's too late for me (and I hope it isn't), lessons learned may help other people. In particular, I think that politicians should look closely at Employer attitudes. Without overcoming their reluctance to take on long-term unemployed people, it's difficult for such people to find a way back to work.

Selected links

For convenience, I set up a list of selected links so that you can, if you wish, follow these without the need to be continually distracted by the multitude of links to external websites.

In America

In America


Wisconsin

I believe that Wisconsin's welfare to work provided the inspiration for New Deal and similar schemes around the world such as Australia's "Work for the dole". I'd be interested to know if these other schemes work better than New Deal. I find it difficult to believe that they are any worse.

Washington Post article

I see from an article in the Washington Post, Highly skilled and out of work, published in January 2008 before the full magnitude of the 2008 banking crisis became apparent, that unemployment is hitting white-collar staff in the United States too. It's not just a British problem.

President Obama

Well, the United States elected President Barack Obama who, if you believed the hype at the time, was destined to solve all the world's problems. The mid-term elections two years later indicated that he hadn't lived up to the hype, although there's time yet. His selection of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state did not fill me with confidence and some of her utterances in that role have not been helpful. Even if Barack Obama does eventually solve all the world's problems, I doubt that it will change my personal situation.

President Bush

Meanwhile, his predecessor George W Bush needn't worry about redundancy. He'll get plenty of job offers. I particularly liked the news about the hardware store job offer that he declined. I think he should have accepted it as an example to everybody. Unemployed people and (even more important) employers would see that it is possible for somebody previously in a well-paid job to work for a modest wage rather than not work at all. While unemployed people often apply for jobs of a lower status than the ones they used to have, employers are generally unwilling to consider them for such jobs, as I explain later when I ask if unemployed people are Too fussy?. I know that the hardware store job offer was a stunt, but if George W Bush had accepted the offer, it might have been the start of a process leading to changes in Employer attitudes.

I have nothing to hide

I have nothing to hide

I use my full (unique) name on the net

I'm not afraid of people looking me up on the internet. I am well aware that anybody can look me up, including the government, potential employers, credit reference agencies (sometimes working on behalf of the government), family, friends and criminals. No wonder I was afraid of the internet to begin with, but I eventually overcame those fears and I've had no problems arising from my openness.

Some time ago, I decided that anybody determined enough could track down everything that I've posted anyway. I therefore made it easy by using my full name, which allows me to track everything, as you can see by doing a Google search on my full name. A Google search on Peter Harris is useless because I have a lot of namesakes, several of whom are important enough to be listed on Wikipedia, but other clues would allow a determined person to get all the information they want about me anyway. Note that I never bother with my middle name in real life, except to include it on a CV or other document that requires it.

It is possible that a job opportunity might come via the internet. Maybe somebody will see something that I've posted and decide that I'm worthy of consideration. In September 2008, I received a message via Facebook from somebody who had noticed my predicament. Sadly, I would have needed medical experience to be of use to that particular person, but that contact illustrates what is possible. Actually, I was surprised that Facebook was the contact point, since I had done very little with my account there at the time; I had done much more on MySpace and Amazon. Eventually, I committed myself more fully to Facebook and I spent a lot of time there in 2010. I deactivated my Facebook account in January 2011 because it was too much of a distraction, but I will return one day.

One of my cyber-opponents wondered on their own now-deleted blog why I use three names, but I didn't respond. That person probably won't read this blog, but now you know why. Being as open as I am, I know that anything I post, anywhere on the internet, can come back to haunt me. I do have some secrets, but fewer than most people. As long as I make sure I keep anything too sensitive off the internet, the advantages of being open far outweigh the disadvantages.

I want employers to read about me

Of course I recognize that employers looking for what I've posted on the internet are likely to find some things they enjoy reading and some things that they don't like, but nobody can please all of the people all of the time. But through it all, employers can assess my writing ability, including spelling, punctuation and my use of language, as well as my IT skills and general level of intelligence, irrespective of what I write about. They can find out plenty else about me too, and if they don't think I'm right for them, so be it. Yet there is always the chance that somebody, somewhere, will like enough of what they see to contact me about a possible job. If I end up being interviewed by that person for the job, I'll go there confident in the knowledge that the person is genuinely interested, though whether I secure the job would still depend on the interview.

Sick and disabled people

Sick and disabled people

Blogging against disablism


Cheating

We all hear stories about cheating; I mention the McFadden family case elsewhere in this blog. Nobody likes to hear these stories, but genuine benefit claimants get really annoyed with them. One disabled person, who himself does voluntary work helping others, told us about able-bodied people wanting to claim disabled benefits (scroll down to Robert's comment). With stories like these, it is hardly surprising that the politicians and the public are sceptical. Unfortunately, a crackdown could result in genuinely disabled people suffering. Traditionally, the politicians erred on the side of ensuring that disabled people get the benefits that they are entitled to. To weed out the cheats, I fear that a lot of disabled people are going to be wrongly declared fit to work when they clearly aren't fit to work.

Misinterpretation

Going back to Robert's comments, it includes this piece.

I'd love to work at something except handing out baskets at Asda. sadly all i get offered is handing out baskets at Asda.

When I provided a link to the page containing the comment on a forum, somebody obviously misread his comment, saying

the disabled guy Robert said he didn't want to work at Asda stacking shelves etc.


No wonder benefit claimants of all types have difficulty explaining themselves. I pointed out the error, but my correction elicited no further response.

Start at the bottom and progress upwards

The same person who misinterpreted Robert's comments went on to describe the career of Sir Terry Leahy, who was appointed as the CEO of Tesco in 1997 and who announced in 2010 of his intention to retire in 2011, then summed up by saying ....

Here then is an example of someone who started at the very bottom of the ladder (and wasn't too proud to be there) and worked his way up to the very top.

.... to which I responded ....

The questions you really have to ask yourself are - if Sir Terry Leahy had been disabled, (a) would he have got the job in the first place and (b) would he ever have been promoted if he did? Probably no in both cases at the time he started. Today, society has progressed far enough to suggest that the answer to the first question is maybe and the second is very unlikely.

Another witch-hunt?

Supposedly, the government policies are aimed at able-bodied people, but we know that the government has another agenda. They are replacing incapacity benefit with employment and support allowance and the politicians are also looking at how many people on those benefits can be transferred to jobseeker's allowance. One person in the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service?, apparently quoting an official source, said

Only the most severely disabled will be able to avoid work. We plan to get up to 2 million of the 2.7 million who currently claim incapacity benefit off the sick.

Very worrying indeed. I don't particularly like the new proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 anyway, but a lot of people are going to suffer much more than myself if they become law in anything like their proposed form. Here's a very sad comment by somebody in that BBC debate.

My father, who is physically fit, suffers from PTSD from his time in the forces, lost his career through a nervous breakdown and has another breakdown once a year, when he is forced to relive his experiences at his "interview" with the incapacity benefit assessment team. Under this new scheme, he will have topped himself from depression caused by financial stress, by 2009. Ah well, one less benefit claimant, eh?

I fear that many sick and disabled people will end up accepting job offers and subsequently being unable to cope, with the result that employers, having been persuaded to give them a chance, harden their attitudes towards such people.

Data entry

In the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service?, some people pointed out that plenty of sick and disabled people could obviously type, so suggested that these people could get a job in data entry, if necessary using a computer at home. Well, of course, it's not that simple. In a normal working environment, data entry clerks usually have to achieve a minimum typing speed and we have no way of knowing any individual's typing speed just by looking at what they've typed.

In the case of home-workers, they'd be expected to get through a certain amount of work each week, which means that if they're slow, they may have to work very long hours to get through the work. Also, we don't know what special assistance the disabled people referred to might need to do normal work. Even if it is home-based, they still have to be supplied with the documents that they are required to type from. It's possible (theoretically) that the documents could be scanned in and transmitted via e-mail, but that wouldn't be practical in most cases due to the sheer volumes involved. An employer would therefore have to arrange for transportation of the documents and that would impose a cost overhead. Here's yet another quote from that BBC debate.

Rampant prejudice amongst employers means it is near impossible for someone with a disability to find work. Employers simply will not employ the disabled. Being attacked by the government and treated like a criminal will not change this and is a disgrace.

More recently, I've learned that the public sector these days is more sympathetic to disabled people, but with major cutbacks expected in the next few years, public sector job vacancies are likely to become a rarity.

Getting back to the point about data entry typing speeds, some of the same principles apply to able-bodied people. Just because I can type doesn't mean that I can do it fast enough to be employed as a data entry clerk. If an employer offered me such a job knowing my likely limit of 30 words per minute, then I'd accept the offer. But would 30 words per minute be enough? I doubt it because most employers looking for data entry clerks ask for at least 40 (and sometimes 50 or 60) words per minute. There are jobs where accuracy is more important than speed, but even for these jobs speed might still be a deciding factor.

Carers

Here's something I hadn't thought about before seeing somebody mention it in that BBC debate. A lot of people stay at home to care for sick, disabled or elderly relatives, for which they are paid a carer's allowance. This actually saves the government money as otherwise those people would fill up nursing homes or hospitals, costing the government far more than they'd earn from the carer being employed instead of receiving a carer's allowance. But all this is not considered when the relative dies. The carer is then expected to seek work like everybody else. Fair enough, you might say, but if that carer had been staying at home for a long time, it won't necessarily be easy. If the new proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 become law, some people may decide that it's not worth becoming a carer in the first place. Consequently, more elderly people will end up in nursing homes and hospitals than would otherwise be the case.

What they say

Please let me know of any other interesting blogs and web pages that you'd like me to consider for inclusion in this section.

Sick and disabled people
On their own blogs
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
Benefit scrounging scum
Diary of a goldfish
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)

Anybody
On the subject of sick and disabled people
They can’t all be disabled, can they? (John Redwood)
How do we define a benefit scrounger? (Debate club - Baby Centre)
Time called on benefit claimants (Loughborough Echo)
Test to put heat on the cheats (Sun)

My own political beliefs

My own political beliefs


I don't fit the unemployed stereotype

Some people are convinced that benefit claimers are all habitual Labour voters. I therefore feel that it is worth saying something about my own voting habits and political beliefs, although these are not directly relevant to anything else I have to say. I don't judge people on their political beliefs, although I might judge them on the manner in which they express those beliefs; I'd rather discuss politics with somebody who disagrees amicably than with an intolerant person who basically shares my views. The intolerant person is likely to fall out with me by focusing on our differences, however few they may be. On the other hand, I've had some interesting discussions with tolerant people who have very different views from my own. We each know that we won't change the other's opinion in any fundamental way, but by discussing the issues, we may each learn something and maybe even influence each other a little, though that would be a bonus. Of course, those who are not only intolerant but who disagree with me on most issues are a complete waste of my time.

Unemployment affects thinking

Two long spells out of work have given me another perspective on life. My fundamental beliefs have not changed, but I have moved leftwards to varying degrees on some issues. While the 2008 banking crisis shows what happens when capitalism gets out of control, I remember the seventies, when socialism got out of control. Just as laws were changed to curb the worst excesses of socialism, so the worst excesses of capitalism can and will be curbed by legislation.

My voting history

The 1970 election was the first in which I became eligible to vote. I am basically Conservative, but Edward Heath was a disaster, remembered most vividly for the three-day week and entry into what is now the European Union (it was called the European Economic Community back then). As Harold Wilson had been a failure in his first spell as prime minister from 1964 to 1970 (the Open University was his idea, but he is better remembered for a major devaluation of the pound), I abstained in the February 1974 and October 1974 elections. Following further industrial strife culminating in the winter of discontent, I voted Conservative enthusiastically in 1979, 1983 and 1987. Margaret Thatcher eventually sorted out the trade unions, but following the abolition of the national dock labour scheme in 1989, the Conservatives lost their way, almost as if their work was done. Even a change of leader couldn't inspire them, so I came close to abstaining in 1992. My misgivings were well-founded, as demonstrated first by black Wednesday and later by rail privatisation (though I didn't object to the principle of rail privatisation, only the way in which it was carried out), so I voted Labour in 1997, doing my bit to get rid of the disastrous John Major. I abstained in 2001 but I returned to my Conservative roots in 2005.

2010 offers no hope

I abstained at the 2010 election as the Conservative and Labour parties appeared to be equally uninspiring. David Cameron lacked a clear vision, therefore he reminded me too much of Edward Heath and John Major. Not only that, but both he and Theresa May, then shadowing work and pensions, made very clear their negative attitude to unemployed people.

Please note that deciding to abstain is entirely different from being completely disinterested or being too lazy to vote. Some people refuse to acknowledge the distinction, but that's their problem not mine. I emphatically didn't want to endorse any of the main parties and I have never seen any point in voting for any of the minor parties. Maybe a time will come when I'll see some point in voting for a minor party, perhaps at a local election, but it hasn't happened yet. We live in a free country and I'm not in the business of telling other people how or even whether to vote, but nor do I want other people telling me how or whether to vote. One of the freedoms we have in this country is the freedom to vote or not to vote as we choose. Let's keep it that way.

We ended up with a coalition government and it remains to be seen how things turn out, but while I was pleased that Theresa May didn't get the cabinet role in charge of work and pensions, I doubt that Iain Duncan Smith will pursue policies that impress me either. I know that whatever happens, I qualify for pension credits in March 2013 if I don't find a job before then (the changes announced in October 2010 do not affect me), but a lot of people won't. Now that I've been sucked into the whole unemployment system, I am concerned about those people who will be on it for a long time to come.

People will say that I can't complain if it works out badly because I didn't vote, and in a sense they're right about that much, but I would have expected the worst whatever government emerged from the 2010 election, given the political cross-party consenus about unemployed people. I have the satisfaction of being able to say that I didn't endorse any party at the 2010 election, so nobody can say that I have only myself to blame for supporting a party that did things that worked against me. I knew that my views wouldn't be represented and that's exctly why I didn't vote. Nevertheless, I'll follow developments with interest. After all, whatever policies are implemented directly affect me.