The politics of unemployment (Peter Durward Harris)

Overview

2009-08-16T03:30:00.009-07:00

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.

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 will equal that quest in terms of duration.

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 thane 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 but it is early days yet.

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 bt the multitude of links to external websites.

Am I a benefit scrounger? >>

Contact me

There are several ways to contact me by e-mail, one of which is via my Blogger profile page. Alternatively, you can use the Blogger comment feature at the bottom of each blog page. These comments won't appear immediately because I approve them all. While I sometimes block nasty comments, I sometimes let even those through if I want to respond to them. One such comment that I approved, but which was originally posted on one of my other blogs, eventually became the basis of the second page on this blog. It illustrates that even nasty comments can sometimes serve a useful purpose.

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Am I a benefit scrounger?

2009-08-16T03:30:00.005-07:00

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.

The persistent threat

Long before this episode happened, I knew that the authorities were look 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.

I have nothing to hide >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

I have nothing to hide

2009-08-16T03:30:00.003-07:00

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.

In America >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

In America

2009-08-16T03:30:00.001-07:00

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.

My own political beliefs >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

My own political beliefs

2009-08-16T03:29:00.012-07:00

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.

BBC debates >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

BBC debates

2009-08-16T03:29:00.011-07:00

BBC debates

Should benefits be linked to community service?

The new proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 were debated on the BBC website. First, there was a small debate (just 26 posts) on the 5 Live message board that started when somebody asked Why has it taken so long? and in which I participated. As of November 2010, that debate survives on the website, unlike the debate that followed it (see next paragraph), which has long since been deleted (at least from public view).

The much larger follow-up debate was a BBC news Have your say feature. Titled Should benefits be linked to community service?, I missed the chance to participate. I was waiting until posts slowed to a trickle so that my posts would be among the last, but the debate was closed before I could carry out that plan. 4,770 comments were submitted, 282 of which were not posted by the BBC because they violated the rules. I wonder what they contained, but I doubt that any of them said anything that I haven't heard or read elsewhere. Well, it wasn't that important that I posted, especially as I now know that the BBC do not necessarily keep these debates online for posterity (although they do appear to keep news articles), but I worked my way through all 4,488 posted responses and substantially upgraded this blog to reflect on what I found.

Responses

In answer to the question Should benefits be linked to community service?, most of the posts expressed the same range of opinions that I expected to see, but I saw a few interesting ones among them. Even a cursory glance showed some recurring themes on both sides of the argument. There were also people who like the idea providing the policy is thought through properly. It won't be, because the politicians don't take any notice of the opinions of unemployed people. If they did, they'd easily be able to weed out the genuine concerns from the frivolous. It's actually quite depressing to see just how many people think that unemployed people should be treated like criminals, but if that happens (and there are times when I feel like I'm regarded as a criminal even as things are), the advocates of that policy are likely to be disappointed at the end results.

It could be you next

As some people pointed out, nobody has guaranteed job security. Those who strongly supported the proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 may have a different outlook if they are made redundant and they discover that finding another job isn't as simple as they then assumed it would be. Some of the strongest supporters of the proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 were people who had lost their jobs and always found work again quickly. There's no guarantee that they will be so lucky next time. The 2008 banking crisis will create problems for people who thought it could never happen to them. "Schardenfreude!" will be the reaction of some people, but if the victims revise their opinions in light of their new experiences, maybe they will help me with my campaign.

People raising complaints against benefit claimants should first experience the indignity and unpleasantness of making a claim and then trying to live off the pittance.

... as one person commented.

Two year rule just first step?

Those who supported the proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 wondered why the government was focusing on those who have been claiming benefits for two years or more. The answer is, of course, that these schemes take time to implement so the plan was to start with those who have been out of work for the longest time, though it seems that the policy has since been changed to focus on young people first. Either way, I assume that the scheme will eventually be extended in stages to all those people of working age who have been out of work for six months or more if the government regards it as a success. That's not the same thing as it actually being a success.

Emotions run high

A few posts that, between them, sum up things nicely.

The only thing the comments on this board show (other than the fact that Britain seems to be full of vile, bitter people these days) is ignorance. Unless you have been through the experience then you have no entitlement to an opinion.

Yes, reduce the unemployed and the sick to the level of the criminal, and in the meantime replace the old aged pension with a death seekers allowance.

This is a complex problem not solved by threats and Bullying.

The government answer to every problem seems to be not to tackle it and sort out the problem people, but to smack everyone just in case.

You might think the person who suggested that the pension could be replaced by a death seekers allowance was exaggerating somewhat, but look at the history. We once had the Department of Social Security, but that sounded too cushy so they dropped that name. Likewise, unemployment benefit became jobseeker's allowance and now incapacity benefit has become employment and support allowance. Spot the trend?

Like the vast majority of unemployed people, I'd love the chance to earn a living instead of claiming benefits. I'll mention other responses to the debate, with my own comments on them, in the relevant pages discussing the issues raised.

Elizabeth Malcolm

The debate comes round frequently in different guises and I don't always notice. I belatedly discovered the article about Elizabeth Malcolm and the associated article titled Britain's jobless: Who cares?. From what I see, Elizabeth Malcolm is not the worst case by any means, but she shows no sign of wanting to work even though her own Children are of working age. Her daughter has a baby so I don't object to the daughter staying at home and claiming benefit.

Tax >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Tax

2009-08-16T03:29:00.009-07:00

Tax

It won't save taxpayers' money

A lot of people who support the proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 seem to think that it will save taxpayers' money. I can assure them that this is most unlikely to happen for a variety of reasons. The cost of running the scheme will almost certainly outweigh any savings made, with the taxpayer footing the bill. Indeed, it appears that New Deal costs an absolute fortune already. I've seen figures quoted on the New Deal scandal blog that are really quite scary. That whole blog, written by somebody with inside knowledge of New Deal, contains some very revealing insights into the administration and costs of running New Deal.

Jobs that need doing

People suggest that there are plenty of jobs that need doing and that unemployed people could be doing these jobs. That's all very well, but it's clear to me that no employer is willing and able to pay for these jobs to be done. If they are done as part of a forced work scheme, they won't reduce real unemployment, although they would reduce statistical unemployment as such people would not count as unemployed. These jobs will therefore cost the taxpayer more because of the administration required, and that's before you count the cost of people in real jobs who become unemployed as a result of forced work schemes undercutting real jobs. If these jobs are done on a voluntary basis with voluntary administrators, they cost nothing, but then they have nothing to do with unemployment issues except in one respect. If unemployed people genuinely feel that they'd like to do voluntary work, they aren't allowed to do more than 16 hours per week. As the 16 hours limit includes both training and part-time work, the amount of voluntary work they are allowed to do has to be reduced further when applicable, to take account of these. Of course, the government can force unemployed people to do so-called voluntary work, but that brings in all the administration costs that aren't there if unemployed people volunteer within the 16-hour restrictions. Crazy, but that's the way the system operates.

Tax the rich?

One way to pay for these and other schemes, at least in theory, is to tax the rich. Politicians are guaranteed to win approval whenever they announce ideas for taxing the rich, but the problem is that such ideas never bring in the kind of money that is needed. This is partly because there aren't enough rich people to tax, unless you define rich very broadly, but also because rich people consult accountants who know how to avoid paying punitive taxes. If the tax loopholes are closed, the rich people can simply emigrate to avoid paying taxes, as Lewis Hamilton did. He still pays UK taxes on UK earnings, but not on his overseas earnings.

A survey showing the number of millionaires in the UK makes it appear that there are a lot of wealthy people out there who could easily afford the extra taxes. But wait - those figures are arrived at by including property. If I had stayed in more or less continuous emplyment over the last 20 years, by now I might well be living in a property worth half a milion, and quite possibly with the mortgage paid off. This illustrates the problem. A lot of those so-called millionaires owe their status to property prices, something acknowledged by the article. They can't spend the money or pay it in taxes unless they sell up. If a lot of people were to do that, property prices would collapse, and it would affect all property prices, not just those at the top.

Sorry, but though I don't have any vested interest in defending rich people, I can see that while they must pay their share of taxes, and that share must be greater even in proportionate terms than the rest of the population, there are limits to how far the idea can go before it becomes counter-productive. While I understand the appeal of taxing the rich, the reality is that the policy doesn't work unless it can be co-ordinated internationally. In that context, I'm pleased to see that global pressure is beginning to bear on tax havens, but it remains to be seen whether this is effective.

Seeing the various ideas espoused by politicians to tax the rich, I notice that they have two things in common with unemployment policies such as New Deal and Flexible New Deal; they sound great in theory but they don't work because people never behave in the way that politicians want them to. The mansion tax proposal is a case in point, being based on the assumption that rich people would simply pay the taxes without taking any avoiding action.

Mansion tax proposal

Vince Cable of the Liberal Democrats announced an idea that appears at first glance to circumvent the usual problems associated with taxing the rich, since it focuses on their homes rather than other aspects of their wealth. As originally announced, the plan involved an annual tax on properties worth more than a million pounds. In simple terms, 5 pounds a year would be payable on every 1,000 pounds that the property is worth not counting the first million pounds. So a property worth two million pounds would be taxed 5,000 pounds per year, while a property worth three million pounds would be taxed 10,000 pounds per year. Later, the plan was changed to exclude properties worth under two million pounds and the 5 pounds per 1,000 payable annually above the threshold was doubled.

Irrespective of the thresholds and values used, it sounds simple enough but one obvious problem is that property prices at the top end will collapse, partly because people will be less willing to pay so much for such properties, but also because existing owners will want to mark down their value to reduce their tax liability. Some owners may decide to sell up and buy properties abroad, further depressing the prices of British properties. Some owners may find ways to divide up their estates, perhaps by dividing up the land or by dividing big houses into flats. Others may simply sell to property developers who may, if they get planning permission, divide things up as only they can.

There could be a particular problem with some properties that are listed buildings and require a lot of money to keep in good condition. I can imagine that more of these properties will end up being sold, donated or left in wills to the National Trust, thus placing an even greater strain on the National Trust. Perhaps some of them will end up being demolished if the National Trust becomes over-stretched and nobody else wants them. I doubt if Vince Cable has thought the idea through.

Another way out for rich people, depending on how the rules apply, is the question of whether the property is purely a private dwelling or not. Longleat is famous for its safari park, but the profit from that supports the upkeep of the mansion. I don't know the value of Longleat House, but I would certainly expect it to exceed two million pounds. Would it be subject to the proposed mansion tax? If so, would that jeopardise its future? If not, maybe other mansions that are currently private dwellings could be converted into businesses. Yes, I can see plenty of problems with the idea.

When first announced, general opinion within the Liberal Democrats appeared to be against the idea, although that appears to have changed, perhaps due the revised threshold or perhaps because there are no obvious alternatives except raising income tax. The plan was not part of the coalition agreement in any form although Vince Cable now has a Cabinet seat, but it is still possible that the Conservatives will accept the idea as part of a deal to cut the top rate of income tax. Even if this doesn't happen, I expect either Labour or the Liberal Democrats eventually develop the idea as one of their policies. If the mansion tax ever becomes law, I'll be interested to see its effects. As I've already indicated, I doubt that it will produce the results that its supporters hope for, but we'll see.

Like most other people, I like the idea that rich people should pay more in taxes than the rest of us. However, I recognise that if they are asked to pay too much, they will find ways round it. There aren't enough mega-rich people around to subsidise the rest of us; it just seems that way because a lot of them are high-profile. Sadly, if taxes need to rise, we all have to pay to varying degrees. Even though I'm on benefits, I still have to pay VAT. Raising VAT to 20% at the start of 2011 was not ideal but I can think of worse ways of raising taxes.

Better off unemployed?

A newspaper article from Septmber 2008, titled You are better off on benefits, shows that the system is not working as the government intended. Nevertheless, I don't believe that all unemployed people would be worse off financially by returning to work. Housing costs are far higher in London, but there is no special London minimum wage. I can certainly see that unemployed people in London might sometimes be better off on benefits than in a job paying the national minimum wage.

If I lived in London, where housing costs are much higher, my total benefits would be, at the very least, much closer to the national minimum wage, which is set at exactly the same rate throughout Britain. Perhaps the newspaper article titled You are better off on benefits was based on research conducted in London? I don't know, but it might be worth looking into the impact of regional variations. Of course, the News media have their own agenda and will look for stories that fit their agenda, without ever allowing the truth to get in the way. In any case, perhaps the government needs to consider having a London minimum wage at a higher rate than the national minimum wage. It wouldn't help the unemployed directly but it might incentivise those of them that live in London.

Tax credits

The tax credits system introduced a few years ago is supposed to ensure that nobody is worse off in a genuine job than they would be on benefits. Anybody who thinks they are worse off in a job than out of one really ought to investigate what they could claim, if they're not claiming already. As I understand, such people may also be entitled to housing benefit and council tax benefit in some instances - perhaps not the full amount, but even a partial contribution may be worth claiming. I know that a lot of people don't claim what they're entitled to, either because they think that it's scrounging or because they simply don't know what's available. Unless you ask, you won't find out.

Having had a brief discussion with somebody at the jobcentre about tax credits, I have no doubt that in my particular case, the monetary value of any income, even for a part time job involving 16 hours' work per week or more, is greater under the tax credits system than being out of work and relying on benefits alone. However, everybody knows that actually going to work involves some costs including transport and higher food costs - and that's even without considering that you may sometimes be expected to socialise with work colleagues. Even the occasional beer at lunch time (if that is part of the culture) makes a difference when one is discussing money at these levels. Once these extra costs are deducted, the net amount of extra income may be very marginal under the tax credits system. There may even be cases where it really is better financially to stay unemployed, at least in the short term, as the article You are better off on benefits claims.

Any job improves prospects

Of course, any employment makes it easier to find another job, so even if there is short-term pain, it may still be worthwhile for the chance of a better future, but if the government wants an effective tax credits system, it needs to be a major incentive, not a marginal incentive. That would cost money. In the meantime, I know that some people regard tax credits as a trap and I remain wary. The tax credits system is a good idea in principle, but it clearly needs adjustment if it is to work for its intended recipients.

Sick and disabled people >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Sick and disabled people

2009-08-16T03:29:00.007-07:00

Sick and disabled people

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)

Slaves and criminals >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Slaves and criminals

2009-08-16T03:29:00.005-07:00

Slaves and criminals

Is "New Deal" slavery?

In the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service?, some people suggested that the new proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 were just a device so that the government could "employ" people while avoiding all the normal statutory rights - the national minimum wage, holiday entitlements, statutory sick pay and so on. As such, many existing minimum wage jobs could (at least in theory) be replaced by unemployed people being forced to do the same jobs. This is a legitimate concern, but maybe the politicians have an answer to it. We'll find out eventually.

A lot of people in that debate angrily rejected the idea of slavery. Certainly, it is an emotive term, but so is poverty. If you are going to redefine poverty, as some people do, to mean what other people would call relative poverty, then it is reasonable to also redefine slavery. True poverty, in the traditional sense of the word, doesn't exist in modern Britain on any significant scale, but some of those who have just enough to survive while surrounded by people who have plenty may feel like they are living in poverty.

My personal experience

Based on my experience of New Deal, I would say that it certainly feels like modern-day slavery and the new proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 sound like more of the same. Of course these schemes aren't as bad as the slavery that existed centuries ago, but we don't have the kind of poverty that prompted the original Live aid in contemporary Britain either.

Presumably the government believes that by subjecting people to such humiliation, it will shock them into finding a proper job. If unemployed people fitted the Stereotypes as the government believes, then it might make sense. Because they are wrong, it doesn't. In my case, the humiliation, the unsuitable work, the appalling conditions in which that work sometimes takes place and my inability to do anything that really would improve my chances of finding a proper job (because of the time taken doing the New Deal placement) only serve to undermine my confidence and motivation.

Far from helping me back to work, the government's policies in general and New Deal in particular have seriously damaged whatever chance I might have had of finding gainful employment - and the new proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 seem set to make matters worse. Not that I will ever give up, but I certainly won't be bullied into doing unsuitable work. At best, that would get me into work for a short period prior to being sacked so wouldn't solve the problem.

Treating unemployed people as criminals

Some contributors to the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service? clearly regard unemployed people as no better than criminals, but others are worried about the implications. If these two groups of people are treated exactly the same, some unemployed people may decide that crime offers a more appealing alternative. I don't suppose either the politicians or those who regard unemployed people as criminals have considered this.

On one of my New Deal placements, I met an ex-criminal who said that if New Deal placements became indefinite (they were for a duation of six months for most people, but three months for those over 50), he would just go back to drug-dealing. After all, he could make more in three hours trading drugs than he could make in three months on the dole. Having sampled prison, he had no desire to risk going back there (so it's not the holiday camp that it's sometimes portrayed as) but if unemployed people were to be treated like criminals, then at least for him, he might as well go back to crime.

Pilot scheme failed

In 2001, the government launched a pilot scheme in Derbyshire, Hertfordshire, Teesside and the West Midlands, which deprives criminals of their benefits if they fail to comply with certain conditions. It was never extended beyond its four original counties, but the timeframe was extended at intervals. Interim reports found reasons to continue with the scheme, but it emerged in October 2008 that the pilot scheme remained active despite being acknowledged as a failure. It causes hardship to the criminals, forcing them to return to crime, while the costs of running the scheme outweigh the savings made by benefits not paid out. Perhaps it is too much to expect the politicians to learn the lessons of this failure.

Other aspects of criminality

Some people suggest that by keeping the unemployed busy, they won't have time to commit so much crime. Leaving aside the obvious fact that a lot of crime is committed by people who have jobs, it may be that there is a reduction in vandalism as a result of the new proposals that the government outlined in July 2008, but as I suggested above, maybe some people will decide that crime offers a better life, so there could be more problems with other types of crime.

One ex-criminal who is unable to get a job because his past counts against him suggested that being forced to do this work may improve his chances. Maybe.

Human rights

Human rights lawyers will be watching with interest. So will I. Some people clearly resent the idea that human rights should apply, but again, let's see what happens if they end up in a situation where they have cause to worry about their own human rights.

Lies, big lies and statistics >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Lies, big lies and statistics

2009-08-16T03:29:00.003-07:00

Lies, big lies and statistics

Unemployment totals

In the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service?, one cynic asked if this was really another excuse for the government to fiddle the official unemployment statistics. That cynic is absolutely correct. I'd like to know how the official unemployment statistics and the number of unemployed people returned to work supposedly as a result of New Deal are worked out. We know that the official unemployment statistics cannot be trusted under governments of any political persuasion these days.

So many people are out of work but are excluded from unemployment statiustics.

Official resources

How the British government measures unemployment discuusses the production of unemployment statistics in general terms but doesn't give a clear set of rules, perhaps because they like to keep a few secrets. I've taken a quick look at How the American government measures unemployment and it appears to be more comprehensive. One thing I noticed is that the United States accept the concept of labour under-utilisation and publish data about it.

Can we trust these explanations and are they meaningful anyway?

International definitions

It seems that people are classified broadly as employed (those who work for at least one hour per week including unpaid jobs), unemployed (those who don't work but want one and are looking for one) or economically inactive (those who aren't looking for a job). As with so many classifications in other aspects of life, these categories are not as clear-cut as they may at first appear, and given the international definition of employment, it's easy to see why there is a need for data about labour under-utilisation.

Two sets of UK statistics

As discussed in How the British government measures unemployment, there are two methods of measuring unemployment. One is the internationally recognized method of market research. I've never found such surveys convincing, because I generally avoid them like the plague and I suspect that a lot of people do. When I see somebody with a clipboard, I normally take avoiding action.

The second method is to count those people who are actually claiming benefits and who fit the definition of unemployed people. Whether the British definition matches the international definition of unemployment is unclear to me. In any event, the way in which people are classified will be the same however the data is collected. The results differ because the market research method gives us some idea about the status of those people who do not claim benefits.

People on placements

People on New Deal placements are not counted as unemployed. Slave labour schemes (or should that be slave Labour schemes?) don't constitute employment in my mind; certainly not in 21st century Britain. Yet it seems that these schemes count as employment according to the international definition of employment.

Female retirement age

Men over the female retirement age don't count in the official unemployment statistics either. They are given pension credits - in effect, pensioned off early. Given forthcoming changes to the state pension age for women, it will be interesting to see whether the government finds a way to fiddle the official unemployment statistics to hide the underlying increase in unemployment. When the female retirement age catches up with the male retirement age, the anomaly of unemployed men retiring earlier than employed men will disappear forever.

Incapacity benefit

The Conservatives, when they were the government prior to 1997, set up the incapacity benefit system specifically to exclude disabled people from the official unemployment statistics. Now, because of the costs involved, politicians of all parties are keen to reverse things. Like the changes to the state pension age, this will damage the official unemployment statistics unless they are fiddled again.

Other exclusions

I'm sure that both the Conservatives and Labour have excluded other people from the official unemployment statistics in various ways, but I don't know all the details. In July 2008, the government said that the total number of out-of-work benefit claimants was 4.5 million. Even that figure wasn't the true level of unemployment at the time, because some unemployed people don't register, as I didn't for more than six years during The nineties job quest. I understand that the real number of unemployed people is well over 5 million but I wouldn't be surprised if it is 7 or 8 million. We'll probably never know.

One thing is clear. As anybody currently on New Deal doesn't count as unemployed, the scheme won't be replaced by one that counts those people in the official unemployment statistics.

Vacancy totals

The government is keen to mention the number of job vacancies as a counter to worsening official unemployment statistics. Most of these vacancies will be filled by people currently employed in other jobs. Their old jobs will usually become vacancies, and so the process will continue. In any case, it takes some time for a vacancy to be filled from its initial announcement. I also wonder how these statistics are calculated, since some jobs are advertised in many different places. Don't be deluded by vacancy statistics.

Trends in job vacancies can easily be observed by looking at local newspapers. In the boom years, there were sometimes 20 or more pages devoted to jobs in the Leicester Mercury and I can remember regarding 16 pages as a bad week. Later, it became merely disappointing, then normal. In 2009, eight pages would be brilliant. The Birmingham Mail used to have an abundance of vacancies advertised each week, but they didn't have many pages in 2009 either. Indeed, they sometimes had fewer pages than the Leicester Mercury. I can accept that the trend to posting vacancies on the internet may account for part of the drop, but we'll only know the true extent of this trend when we hit the next boom period. In any case, vacancies advertised on the internet are also far fewer than they once were, while some vacancies are advertised in newspapers as well as on the internet.

Government acclaims "New Deal"

New Deal has been the most successful innovation in the history of the UK labour market. In the last decade, New Deal has helped more than 1.85 million people into work.

Don't believe a word of it. We'll look at further governmentclaims about New Deal in A look back at New Deal.

Uri Geller more believable

If you believe the official unemployment statistics, you may also believe Uri Geller's explanation of Scotland's penalty miss in a match against the England football team at the old Wembley stadium.

Stopping benefits >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Stopping benefits

2009-08-16T03:29:00.001-07:00

Stopping benefits

No notice given

Under the current system, benefits can be stopped at any time with immediate effect. They don't give you a notice period while any appeal takes place. It's instant. If my benefit is stopped and I fail to restore it through whatever appeals procedure is available, I can apply for hardship payments, but if I can't get those or I can't live on them, I suppose that I'll have a choice of either becoming a martyr or turning to crime. As I live near Leicester prison, which was presumably built when there was an abundance of money for public spending (they don't build them like that now), I would probably just pay them a visit and ask for accommodation so that I could have food and shelter. This, of course, is the problem with government threats to stop benefits. If they really do stop a lot of people's benefits without warning, they will soon have a new set of problems to deal with.

Time limits

In the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service?, some people pointed out that other countries have schemes where benefits are time-limited. From what I've heard of some of them, they are accompanied by intensive efforts to re-train unemployed people so that they have every chance of finding work within the time limit. It is also possible that employers in those countries have a different attitude to unemployed people, since there is no incentive (real or perceived) for anybody to remain unemployed.

Maybe such a scheme could be made to work in Britain, but it could only work with attitude changes by all concerned - not just unemployed people, but politicians, employers and the general public. For as long as a large number of people, especially some employers, believe that unemployed people are no better than criminals, it's difficult for those people to find work. As this attitude adjustment couldn't happen quickly, there would still have to be some kind of safety net for those unemployed for a long time, at least as a transitional arrangement.

I think hardship payments could replace jobseeker's allowance for people out of work for a long time, as a cheaper (and possibly more effective) alternative to forced work schemes. I understand that something like this happens in Germany. People know that if they don't find work within the time limit, they'll still have enough to survive on after that, but it will be at a reduced level.

Bankruptcy >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Bankruptcy

2009-08-16T03:28:00.004-07:00

Bankruptcy

Scare stories

The experts like to scare people about bankruptcy, claiming that it will make life impossible for years to come and warning people that they must take all steps to avoid it. Of course, it's impossible to avoid if you have debts that cannot be repaid from your income. Those debts don't have to be massive to be un-repayable if you're unemployed. I wanted to avoid bankruptcy because of all the scare stories, but ultimately had no choice. Actually, it proved to be the best option in the circumstances that I found myself. In the event, the fear of bankruptcy was greater than the reality. I'd probably have sorted out the situation sooner if I'd known then what I know now. As with my 1990 decision to take a break from work, hindsight is easy.

Back taxes

The only thing that caused me a little worry was when I was told that bankruptcy involves a very thorough investigation into one's back taxes. As I was self-employed for much of the eighties, I wondered if they'd find anything and what the consequences might be if they did, but I needn't have worried because they never found any problem. Having been told beforehand that the back-tax search is the most thorough possible, I at least know that they never will find any problem with my pre-bankruptcy tax payments. If by some chance they do, I can point out that they should have found it during the bankruptcy proceedings and I would seek legal advice if they pursue the matter.

Stubborn bank

When I found myself in financial difficulties, I first tried to negotiate with my bank. I wanted them to write off some of the debt, leaving me to repay the rest with interest over a period of time. The bank wouldn't countenance such a policy but suggested that I could repay the entire amount outstanding over a period of many years. The required monthly payments (seventy pounds) were well beyond anything that I could seriously consider, so I ended up going for bankruptcy. The bank ended up getting exactly nothing from me, which is much less than they would have got had they been willing to negotiate. Of course, they may believe that, in the overall scheme of things, it's better not to negotiate write-offs with people like me because they'd incur other costs but that's their business.

The bank got some money by selling on the debt, which was re-sold a couple of times after that (I know because I was always told about any change of creditor), but I wonder about the ethics of such practices. Still, that's not my concern, but maybe the 2008 banking crisis will shake up the industry. If banks were not allowed to sell on bad debts, or only allowed to do so under certain circumstances, it might oblige them to offer negotiation.

If I'd managed to secure the kind of agreement that I'd wanted, I'd have been considerably worse off than I am now although I've paid in other ways. Yes, it's a nuisance at times, but given the size of the debt written off (around 13,000 pounds), I can't complain too much. Still, it creates problems for me, some of which are compounded by other policies that could be changed to make things a little easier.

Not easy to borrow

I can do without a credit card (though, ironically, I'd probably be a far less risky prospect now than a lot of people who currently have them) although I'd like the ability to borrow money from somewhere without paying exorbitant interest rates, should an emergency arise. Suppose the landlord suddenly decides to give me two months' notice to quit? That's all he needs to do as I explain in my page about Tenancies, but how would I afford the cost of moving? Actually, I think I'm safe, having been here since September 1998, but as long as the law says two months is all the notice that I'm entitled to, I can never be sure.

Loan sharks

I must point out that never at any stage did I contemplate borrowing money from a loan shark. Indeed, I wouldn't know where to find one, but I strongly advise anybody against the idea. I've heard and read about too many horror stories. It is just not worth it.

Chequebook

I'd certainly like a debit card or a chequebook so that I can buy stuff from Amazon at the prices they advertise on the rare occasions that I have money to spend there. For a while, I bought from Amazon UK using postal orders, which carry a surcharge of close to 9% of the value, but that still didn't allow me to buy from other Amazon sites. When Amazon UK told me that they were discontinuing the option to pay by postal orders, I told a few people that Amazon UK didn't want my custom anymore.

Somebody then told me about prepaid cards so I applied for (and received) a Virgin prepaid card. It's actually better than paying by postal orders. The premium is lower than for postal orders (around 3%, slightly higher if it involves a different currency) but it's still more expensive than having a chequebook or a standard card. It also comes without the protection those cards offer, but it allows me to buy from Amazon USA again when I choose to, although I can't afford to very often. So I can buy stuff via the internet, but I still can't borrow money.

Another annoyance is having to carry large wads of cash around whenever I need to pay my rent or on those rare occasions when I am able to buy a big-ticket item.

An idea

How could the bankruptcy rules be improved? My main grievance is the rigid six-year rule. Whereas convicted criminals are given sentences graded according to the severity of their crimes, varying from a small fine to life imprisonment (there's no death penalty in Britain), no such variation is accorded in respect of bankruptcies. It no doubt suits the banks that everybody gets treated the same, but is it fair?

Some people, like me, end up going bankrupt following the loss of a job or some other situation (such as a death in the family) in which there is a dramatic reduction in income. Contrast people in these situations with those who can only be described as irresponsible and who go bankrupt despite having a steady income, just because they spend beyond their means. I'd like to think that if I get a job again, I could get at least a standard bank account and maybe a credit card. If I get a job before September 2012, the six-year rule may be a blocker. I'd been with the same bank for around 35 years before I hit trouble but this, too, counted for nothing. It was clear from my exchanges with them at the time that they wanted nothing more to do with me, so I certainly won't be bothering them again although I'll watch to see if my old bank ever takes over or merges with my current bank. In that event, I'll try to switch banks again. Is it fair that all bankrupted people are treated the same following their discharge? I think not. A more flexible system is needed in today's society.

In the wake of the 2008 banking crisis, the banking industry will argue that now is the worst time to be considering such issues. True, but their problems stem from their own irresponsible lending and gambling. Any loan that appears responsible can be made to appear otherwise if the borrower suffers a sudden loss of income during the period of the loan. If my ideas were implemented, banks would be obliged to take a more responsible attitude to lending even without the 2008 banking crisis to consider. I think that my idea remains good despite the crisis.

Crosby, Brown and Goodwin

The three most guilty Brits of the 2008 banking crisis are Sir James Crosby, Gordon Brown and Sir Fred Goodwin. I'd like to see them all given a one-way ticket for a journey on the Marrakesh express, never to return.

Housing benefits >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Housing benefits

2009-08-16T03:28:00.003-07:00

Housing benefits

Easy for some

We all know that people on employment and support allowance or jobseeker's allowance in Britain can also claim housing benefit (or local housing allowance) and council tax benefit. This may seem a simple matter if you can understand the forms (and even I, with all my brains, struggled with those). Once having filled in those forms correctly, it was easy for me when my current tenancy was managed by an agency on behalf of the landlord and in my previous tenancy, when the landlord was happy to accept housing benefit paid directly from the local council. When the landlord took over direct management of my current tenancy early in 2007, he flatly refused to accept such direct payments. This created new and unexpected difficulties for me.

Cash flow problem

My landlord expects monthly payments on the 25th of each month or as near as possible if it's Saturday, Sunday or a public holiday such as Christmas Day. Perfectly reasonable, you may think. Unfortunately, the housing benefit system doesn't allow for monthly payments. That may be why the landlord refuses to accept them although I'm only guessing. Instead, payments are made to me every four weeks, calculated proportionately. So I am short by more than twenty pounds each month except for once a year, when two payments occur between successive rental dates. That's what I call my bonus month.

Another curiosity is that Leicester city council refused to pay my housing benefit directly into my bank account prior to September 2008, even though they always paid landlords that way. I have no idea why, but it caused particular problems for me. It seems that the policy change relates to the introduction of local housing allowance, which is always paid to tenants. That creates a whole other set of problems for those landlords who were previously paid directly by the council. I may have more to say on that eventually, although it's not a problem that affects me personally.

Cheque clearance times

Due to the Bankruptcy from which I was discharged in September 2006, I don't have a proper bank account. I have a savings account into which my jobseeker's allowance is paid directly and takes the standard time to clear (traditionally three days, but quicker now, although I still get my jobseeker's allowance on the same day, the government having changed the payout date to take advantage of the faster clearance times). Unfortunately, when I pay cheques (including housing benefit cheques) into my savings account, they took (to use the official phrase) seven to ten working days to clear. That's nearly two weeks assuming that there were no public holidays in between. Again, things have improved, but it's still slow.

Furthermore, since my cheque normally arrived on a Wednesday, I couldn't pay it in till the Saturday when I was on a New Deal placement. And if that also caused it to straddle the Christmas period, a cheque arriving in December may not have cleared until it was nearly time for the following cheque to arrive in January. On top of all that, I sometimes had to worry about whether the Royal Mail would actually deliver my cheque. As things turned out, the 2007 postal dispute didn't cause any severe delays for me (some others, especially in Liverpool, were not so lucky), but I was always concerned that it might. I was thinking that next time there's a dispute, I may be less fortunate, but the September 2008 rule change allowing direct payments into bank accounts means that I don't have to worry about postal disputes delaying my benefit payments, although they would cause inconvenience in other ways, especially if employers choose to respond to job applications by post.

So it was that a cheque received during one month could usually only be used to pay the following month's rent, even if everything ran smoothly. And even then, it was twenty pounds short except once a year when I had the extra payment. This cash flow situation created a substantial problem for me when my landlord changed the system. Even though I'm back on an even keel, it's still awkward trying to figure out what my real financial situation is. Sometimes I may appear to have a lot of money available but I don't really. At other times, I may appear to have hardly any but I know that I only have a day or two to wait and there will be plenty. And, of course, because the housing benefit payment arrives at a different time each month on a revolving cycle, it's not as simple as looking up which day of the month it is. (Incidentally, my jobseeker's allowance is paid every two weeks and I don't particularly like that time-frequency either, but because I sign for benefit every two weeks, that is never going to change unless the entire signing on system does too.) At least now, I know that payment will be quicker.

To illustrate how extreme things were, let's look at February 2008. I received my housing benefit cheque punctually on Wednesday the 6th. I couldn't pay it into the bank until Saturday the 9th, which meant that it would clear by the 22nd (it might have been earlier but I didn't rely on that). My rent was due on the 25th (a Monday), so because my placement ended on the 22nd, I could rely on the money from that cheque clearing in time to help pay the rent - but only just. But supposing that my placement had lasted another week, so that I wouldn't have been able to pay the landlord in person? As, by then, I'd been transferred to the former farm near Ragdale, the only day that I'd have been able to pay the rent was on my job search day (a Tuesday). Perhaps the landlord would have agreed to accept the rent a day late, but I wouldn't want to use up his goodwill that way. No, I'd have paid the rent on the 19th, before the housing benefit cheque had cleared (I checked out of curiosity).

So, because of New Deal combining viciously with Leicester city council's refusal (at the time) to pay directly into my savings account combined with the bank's leisurely cheque clearance policy plus the same bank's refusal to allow me a standard bank account, there were circumstances in which the housing benefit cheque could reach me nineteen days before the next rent was due and I still wasn't be able to use the money to pay that rent, though of course it was available for the following month's rent. By that time, the next housing benefit cheque would also have cleared, so that was my once-a-year bonus month. Still, because of the conditions described above, my bonus month actually came several months later than it would if I had a standard bank account or if Leicester city council had paid my housing benefit directly into my existing savings account at the time. Note that I have not picked the most extreme possible case, which would cover the Easter or Christmas periods, both of which include plenty of public holidays to stretch the time-span further.

I can cope with all these quirky payments but then, I have a mathematical brain and I'm also able to cut my spending to the bare minimum if I absolutely have to, not least because I'm a bachelor boy and don't have to worry about anybody but myself. I can imagine that a lot of other people end up in big trouble trying to reconcile these money flows, especially if they have family or other commitments that I don't have.

And it's worse than that

While I have to pay rent in advance, my benefits are paid in arrears (that's over and above the problems I've already described). So when there is a rent payment increase, I lose out because I never really get back the extra money. For one month, I pay the extra amount. While Leicester city council eventually increases the benefit payment to me, that increase merely funds subsequent rent payments.

Local housing allowance

For the time being, Leicester city council are only using the new system for new claims, so I'm staying on the old housing benefit system although I'd be much better off under the new local housing allowance system. Elsewhere, some local councils have transferred everybody to the new system and this has created a lot of problems for some people. I expect to have a lot more to say on the subject eventually, but here's the basic rules.

As the law was originally set up, if tenants could find accommodation cheaper than their local housing allowance, they were be allowed to keep the difference up to a maximum of fifteen pounds per week. Any more than that apparently causes the local housing allowance to be cut. From April 2010, it seems that tenants will no longer be able to keep the savings, which removes the incentive to shop around and may lead to landlords raising prices for low-cost housing. There is pressure for the rule change to be dropped. Given the proximity of the 2010 election, the fight will be interesting. Either way, if the rent is higher than the local housing allowance, the tenant has to pay the extra.

I've worked out, based on the new system as originally implemented, that my rent is well within the allowance so I would be fifteen pounds a week better off if I were simply transferred to the new scheme. This reinforces what I've heard from my landlord - that my rent is much lower than it might be, perhaps because I've stayed in the same place for a long time. If I were to look for alternative accommodation to qualify for local housing allowance, I would certainly have to pay more, so I wouldn't be rewarded with a bonus of anything like the maximum amount - if I got one at all. And because I'd have to fund the cost of the move, anything less than the maximum wouldn't be worth having, so I won't bother.

This scheme does not affect me because I haven't moved since the scheme started. If I move, or if I get a job then lose it (for example, because it's a temporary job) and have to sign for benefits again, or if Leicester city council follow the example of some other councils and transfer everybody to the new system, I'll be put on the new local housing allowance.

Tenancies >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Tenancies

2009-08-16T03:28:00.001-07:00

Tenancies

When tenants ruled

Back in the seventies, before I ever got to the stage of applying for my first mortgage, I lived in a succession of bedsits in London, Newcastle and Leeds. The accommodation was mostly of a poor quality, perhaps because the tenancy laws at the time were so loaded in favour of tenants that many potential landlords were reluctant to enter the market. It was almost impossible to get rid of tenants unless they did something horribly wrong. Clearly, something had to change, but has the balance swung too far in favour of the landlords?

Just two months' notice

As things stand, a landlord can give a tenant two months' notice to quit and that's the end of it. The tenant has no choice but to leave within two months and move somewhere else if the landlord is determined to enforce the notice period. Personally, I think that two months is cutting it a bit fine even in logistical terms (three months would be better) but that's not my main concern. I certainly wouldn't welcome being told, completely out of the blue, that I have to leave within two months. I've got enough to worry about anyway, but providing I'm not on a New Deal placement at the time, I guess that I'd cope with the logistical aspects. Whether a family would be able to do so within the same time frame is another matter entirely.

Cash flow

My main problem is that, like many unemployed people, I don't usually have any spare cash lying around. Sometimes I do, especially if I'm saving up for something big (in which case that money can be diverted) but it's certainly not guaranteed. And because of the Bankruptcy from which I was discharged in September 2006, I can't borrow any money. So how do I fund the cost of a move? One possibility is the social fund, but will they agree to the loan? In a dire emergency, I might be able to borrow from relatives but I don't like that idea.

Six months, please

I certainly don't want to stay if the landlord doesn't want me, but I think that a notice period of six months would be perfectly reasonable. It would allow landlords to get rid of tenants (unlike in the seventies) but would allow those tenants a reasonable period to save up for and organize the move. Of course, if the tenant is bad, eviction laws for those tenants would apply as they do now. They'd still have to get out quickly, with only themselves to blame. For normal tenants, let's have a six-month notice period. In my case, given such notice, I'd want to get out as soon as possible (ideally within two months) but at least I'd have the leeway to go in a calm, measured manner. Two months, as a statutory law, is not enough.

If there are exceptional circumstances in which a landlord wishes to evict a tenant quickly, the law could allow for this providing the landlord is willing to compensate the tenant for premature eviction, perhaps by funding all or part of the costs involved. The devil would be in the detail, but I suspect that compensation would be on a sliding scale based on the notice period. Eviction within two months would qualify for higher payments than eviction within four months.

When landlords don't pay their bills

As of March 2009, tenants can be evicted almost immediately if the property is re-possessed to pay debts owed by the landlord. It seems that this, at least, may change. I'll be watching with interest, but as the landlords in trouble tend to be those that only have one or two properties, I'm not worried about my own situation. My landlord makes a career out of renting property and has a huge number of properties in the Leicester area. If his business hits financial trouble, it'll be a problem for a large number of people in Leicester. Evicting tenants probably wouldn't be the best solution anyway when such a landlord hits financial difficulties, given the number of properties involved. Come to think of it, my landlord might be snapping up a few bargains from among the properties repossessed from other landlords and owner-occupiers, if he can get them at the right price.

Rent rise

The new local housing allowance rules aren't yet applied by Leicester city council, so any rent rise could still cause me concern. When I started claiming housing benefit this time around, questions were raised about whether I should be allowed, as a single person, to remain where I am or be forced to move somewhere cheaper. These questions were dropped because of my Bankruptcy, it being acknowledged that I could not afford the costs of a move at the time even if they wanted me to move. If the question is revived and I am expected to move, maybe (since it will be Leicester city council rather than the landlord that wants me out), I'll be given more time to move. Alternatively, I'll probably have the option of staying where I am and paying the difference myself, in which case I may choose that option but I really don't see why I should have to.

Should councils be able to force people to move to cheaper housing? It's not as if I'm living in luxury. I have a bedroom, a bathroom and a combined kitchen / living room. That's all. Maybe if I were living alone in a big house, then I could understand. But then, the new local housing allowance rules will stop this nonsense. It will be up to the tenant to decide what accommodation is affordable. If I am forced to move and I remain in private housing, I'll be transferred from housing benefit to local housing allowance. Just one more needless worry.

Minimum wage >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Minimum wage

2009-08-13T02:26:00.013-07:00

Minimum wage

Comparison with benefits

A lot of comparisons are made between the national minimum wage and unemployment benefits. In April 2008, jobseeker's allowance was raised to 60.50 pounds per week for most single people, rising to 64.30 in April 2009. Those under 25 are paid a reduced rate, while different rates apply for couples and lone parents. Of itself, this would be well below the national minimum wage for a full week's work, but unemployed people are also entitled to housing benefit (or local housing allowance) and council tax benefit. Some claimants are entitled to other benefits too. It is also true that unemployed people don't pay national insurance contributions, though it's worth pointing out that many unemployed people paid those contributions in the past, which is something that many people choose to ignore.

In my case, the amount I receive in housing benefit actually exceeds the amount I receive in jobseeker's allowance, though as I explain on my Housing benefits page, it's much more complicated than you might expect. I never see my council tax benefit, it being paid on my behalf; if only housing benefit were that simple. Even taking all that into account, my total unemployment benefit doesn't come close to the national minimum wage for a full working week.

London

As I explained in my page about Tax, if I lived in London, where housing costs are much higher, my total benefits would be much closer to the national minimum wage, which is set at exactly the same rate throughout Britain, so perhaps the government needs to consider having a London minimum wage at a higher rate than the national minimum wage. It wouldn't help the unemployed directly but it might incentivise those of them that live in London.

Stick to the facts

I'm always keen on getting the facts right, so while I don't go along with those who try comparing jobseeker's allowance directly with the national minimum wage, I also don't go along with those who exaggerate the amount that unemployed people actually receive. I'm happy to compare like with like, as near as possible, difficult as it is with all the variables to consider. However, I wonder if the way the system is set up makes it easy for large families to live off benefits.

Exemptions for self-employed and "New Deal"

The rules governing the national minimum wage contain some exemptions, the main one being self-employed people. Although not mentioned by name, New Deal is also exempt, coming under the heading "Government employment programmes".

At first glance, it seems sensible to exclude self-employed people; however, such people aren't usually working for themselves in the true sense of the word. I spent much of the eighties as a freelance computer programmer, during which time I had self-employed status but I was actually doing work for whichever organization was willing to pay for my services, which often involved working a long way from home. Of course, such work pays well, but there are other types of work that pay poorly, where it might be tempting for an employer to circumvent the national minimum wage by only using self-employed people.

I am always suspicious when I see low-grade job vacancies that stipulate self-employed status. In these cases, the employer is implying that they will use the services of the successful applicant, but because they aren't offering a job conventionally, there is no real commitment on their part. When I was a freelance computer programmer, I knew that I was being paid considerably more than regular staff members doing the same type of work, but when I see low-grade jobs offered on the basis of self-employed status, I don't necessarily see them the same way.

Leaflet distribution

Most leaflet distribution job vacancies require own transport, which rules me out because I never took a driving test. While I was living in Bushey and working in Watford, I took many driving lessons and eventually had a provisional booking for a driving test in nearby Berkhamsted in January 1975. That was as near as I got because it was obvious that I wouldn't have passed and I gave up the idea of driving, which is something I later came to regret.

Hey, if leaflet distribution is all that anybody is willing to pay me to do and I don't need to drive, I'll do it. I enquired about one leaflet distribution job that didn't mention transport, expecting to be told that I didn't qualify as I don't have my own transport. Not so. Here is an excerpt from their response, but I'm still not happy.

The job is very straight-forward and by following some simple advice you will be able to earn very good money. There is no selling, you just need to be friendly, happy and energetic and distribute our cards to people’s letterboxes and people in the street. Our good people are earning over 280 pounds a week by working hard.

The job involves posting our cards through the letter boxes of people's homes and handing them out in the street on busy days. For seven years now, people have used our card to make phone calls and from these calls we pay you a generous commission. We know how much commission to pay you because the cards we give you have a number on the back of the card that is unique to you. So when people use the cards you have given them, you start earning money.

We used to pay people a basic amount per hour to hand out the cards and a small commission, but so many people dumped our cards and just took the basic salary. We started paying people commission four years ago and since then it has prevented dishonesty and enables us to reward honest, hardworking people like you.

We know it means that you have to trust us in the first week and we are very happy for you to talk to some of our top people if you want to hear what they have to say about the job.

It sounds fair enough from their perspective, but I wouldn't trust them in my present circumstances. It's the sort of thing that might be worth taking a chance on if one isn't claiming benefits for whatever reason. But in any case, while there is no selling, the job clearly requires somebody with an outgoing personality.

Stereotypes >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Stereotypes

2009-08-13T02:26:00.011-07:00

Stereotypes

Don't jump to conclusions

Judging all unemployed people on the basis of the McFadden family is like judging nurses on the basis of Beverley Allitt or doctors on the basis of Harold Shipman, or assuming that all football supporters are hooligans.

Here's a comment from the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service? that sums things up nicely.

There's a stereotyping that drives the view that all people who are out of work don't want to work. This is one of the biggest obstacles to people getting a job. They are not taken seriously because they don't have a job. This won't change if they are made to work, there will still be stereotyping between those who are working for benefits and those who are fully employed. This won't help the unemployed, many of whom aren't even registered unemployed and are not entitled to benefits anyway.

It's not quite as simple as that because the government and the News media have identified four categories of able-bodied unemployed people, but the other categories are just as bad. Like the vast majority of unemployed people, I don't fit any of these four stereotypes, these being (to put it crudely) the lazy (already mentioned), the feckless, the lunatics and the stupid. I'd love the chance to earn a living instead of claiming benefits, but let's examine these stereotypes, along with a fifth stereotype, the snobs, which is really a subset of the lazy.

Before discussing all these supposed categories of unemployed people, let's look at one category of people who choose not to work but who do not claim benefits either.

People who don't need to work

Those lucky people

In response to my comments on this page, I received an e-mail from a mother of four Children. She stays at home with the agreement of her husband, who has a well-paid job. They claim no benefits and lead life comfortably. In this way, they avoid the pressures of work and family life that eat away at so many marriages. Lucky them, I hear you say. Yet there are some people who describe that mother as a social scrounger and I was asked why people would treat her this way. Having decided on a response, I may as well post it on this page.

I believe that a lot of criticism stems from a combination of resentment and misunderstanding, with the latter often being caused by people's refusal to put aside whatever preconceptions they have - something that applies in all aspects of life.

I've heard before about stay-at-home mothers being criticised for doing just that, but I wasn't sure how widespead it is. At a guess, I'd say that there are two mutually exclusive groups of women who might not like you staying at home. The first group are jealous because they would also like to stay at home but can't maintain the standard of living they want on their husband's income. (That's not the same as being unable to live on one income, because my parent's generation regarded that as the norm, but they didn't have all the things that subsequent generations have come to take for granted.) The second group, far from wanting to stay at home, resent you because you're somehow letting women down, after all the campaigning for women's rights beginning with the suffragette movement more than 100 years ago. If any man resents you for staying at home, he may be jealous of your husband's wealth. All of this is just guesswork, but maybe you can fit your critics into one or other of these categories. Maybe there are other categories, but I can't think of any.

I then recommended that she tell her critics that if she went back to work, it would be at the expense of somebody in greater need. That ought to shut them up, but probably won't.

Live and let live

All of this is not to criticise mothers who do paid work. Indeed, some are obliged to do so out of economic necessity. Even among those who don't need to work, perhaps because they have partners in well-paid jobs, there will be some who want to work anyway. But if a mother can live comfortably without working and without claiming benefits, it really does seem silly to criticise her for choosing that lifestyle, especially when there aren't enough jobs for all those who want them.

Of course, if I am wrong in my guess about why stay-at-home mothers are sometimes described as social scrounges, or if there are additional circumstances besides those that I've suggested, I'll be happy to be corrected.

The lazy

People who don't want to work

There are some such people (I've met one or two) but they're definitely in the minority. Of course, there's a sense in which most people don't want to work, if only they could maintain their lifestyle without having to. Wouldn't it be nice to have unlimited leisure time and an unlimited supply of money with which to indulge it? Lottery jackpot winners and other people who suddenly come by vast riches often quit their job (if they have one) immediately. Most eventually realise that the reality isn't as they expected, partly because other people regard them differently, but that's another issue. Sadly, unemployed people don't generally have such riches to draw on. Although I was able to live off my former wealth for over six years during The nineties job quest, my current period of unemployment took me into Bankruptcy. The court was unable to take anything off me to make even a minor contribution towards repaying the creditors. So although unemployed people have, in theory (but only partly true), plenty of time, they generally don't have an exciting life, as I explain on my page about My lifestyle. Different unemployed people make different choices but they all miss out in some way on things that most people take for granted, unless they are either cheating in some way, as in the case of Shashi Bacheta and Jeffrey Cole, or exploiting loopholes in the system, as in the case of the McFadden family. So it's not difficult to see why the vast majority of unemployed people would much prefer to get a job.

Who are these lazy people?

Nevertheless, it's clear that there are some lazy people who feel that they can get by without a job, otherwise we wouldn't keep hearing stories about them. Large families sometimes hit the headlines as the McFadden family case did in March 2008. Yet, despite the outrage this case caused (and I am also outraged by this case), it is an exceptional case. It's not unique because other cases have made the headlines before and will likely continue to do so, but it's certainly not commonplace. If it were, it wouldn't make the headlines the way it did. Three council staff members lost their jobs in another unusual case reported in October 2008, although it is more of a reflection of the local housing allowance, introduced earlier that year to replace the old housing benefit, than the family itself. Nevertheless, this is another case involving a large family and it does appear that such families are able to exploit the system in ways that most people can't.

Welfare reform

The politicians haved looked at the law in this area and decided on system of capping the total amount tat a family can claim, as part of the 2011 welfare reform bill. The McFadden family certainly won't like that aspect of the bill, but the vast majority of unemployed people are likely to approve of the claims cap. As far as the other aspects of the bill are concerned, some of the bullet point headers sound OK while others sound sinister. I fear the worst but the devil is in the detail, so let's see what emerges onto the statute book and how it is enforced. By the time some of it is implemented, it may be too late to affect me, but I'll still be interested in seeing what the consequences are.

Media distortion (part 1)

Newspapers are always looking for unusual cases in whatever they report. Most murders go unreported, even in local newspapers, because there are so many of them. For a murder to make headline news, it has to be in some way different from the average murder, cruel as that may seem. It's the way that newspapers work. Elsewhere in this blog on my page about Psychometric tests, I mention the case of Tracie Andrews, who stabbed her boyfriend to death. It was an unusual case because the woman was the aggressor. How much coverage would the story have received had the roles been reversed? In the same way, the McFadden family case made the headlines precisely because it was so unusual. Of course, in the minds of a sceptical public, this still leaves open the question about whether the majority of unemployed people really want to work or not.

Lottery jackpot winners

Lottery jackpot winners can't legally claim benefits because if they're unemployed when they win the lottery, they're supposed to declare their win and stop claiming; if they don't, I'm sure they'll be found out anyway because the lottery organizers are likely to tell the tax authority. In any case, there aren't many lottery jackpot winners in the overall scheme of things, so who might the lazy benefit claimers be? Clearly, they must have a lot of help from other people (and are therefore cheating the system) because, as I've already pointed out, life is mostly dull on unemployment benefits alone. Either you have a social life, in which case you are probably limited to one or two nights a week (unless your companions are subsidising you) and you're bored the rest of the time, or you find other ways to amuse yourself as I do, but nevertheless feel limited in so many ways.

Young people living with their parents

My guess is that the greatest numbers of idlers are young people still living with their parents, especially as jobseeker's allowance, modest as it is, is likely to be far more than the pocket money that they received while still at school. Only a small minority of such people think that way, because most young people want to make their own way in the world and to avoid dependence on their parents as far as possible. But for those who don't have any great ambition, or who only see a life of mindlessly boring jobs, then maybe (at least for a while), being lazy may seem preferable. There are probably other, older, people who are able to rely on others to avoid having to work themselves while still claiming benefits. They include people who have family and friends willing to subsidise their laziness as well as the criminals.

Criminals

For the purposes we are concerned with here, criminals fall into two categories. First, there are those who are illegally Claiming benefits while working. Second, there are other criminals whose illegal activities fund their lifestyle, some of whom sign on for jobseeker's allowance because they consider it easy money, little as it is. Both types of criminal find that it's not so easy on New Deal, which may have been brought in to drive these people off benefits. Unfortunately, this is at the expense of making it more difficult for those who genuinely want to work.

Media distortion (part 2)

I don't know if any proper research has been carried out to identify the lazy benefit claimers but I'd certainly be interested to know the results. I could be completely wrong in my guesswork about who they might be, but I certainly don't believe they are as numerous as a lot of people think. Like football hooligans or any other troublemakers, the coverage they get is out of proportion to their actual numbers. For example, nobody in the News media seems interested in my analysis of the issues as presented in this blog, although my Amazon reviews made the News media. Yet the McFadden family made news because of their laziness.

Yes, the News media pick and choose what they want to publish. While the stuff they publish is often distorted beyond belief, as the story about my Amazon reviews proved, the News media can distort the truth to an even greater extent by their choice of which stories to publish and which stories to ignore. If they ignore or sabotage stories that show unemployed people in a good light while dramatising stories that show how bad they are, there is nothing that anybody can do. The internet at least allows an outlet for those who cannot get their stories out in any other way.

Political assumptions

Unfortunately for the majority of unemployed people, government policies are driven by the assumption that a lot of them are lazy. I suspect that this was the reason for New Deal being introduced. Forcing unemployed people to do something, especially low-grade work in appalling conditions, is an appealing idea, at least superficially. However, it is a very clumsy approach to the problem with far-reaching consequences for the majority of unemployed people who really do want to return to a proper job.

I don't like lazy claimants

I have no sympathy with those who truly don't want to work but who nevertheless claim benefits. They deserve whatever punishment they get, but it may not always be easy to identify the lazy claimants.

Assessments of laziness

I don't trust jobcentre staff to determine who is lazy and who isn't. Some of them are sympathetic while others are highly suspicious, so it would all depend on who carries out the assessment. Those assessed by suspicious staff would be far more likely to be deemed lazy than those assessed by sympathetic staff.

I live in constant fear of having my benefit stopped, which actually makes it harder, not easier, to look for work. Do people really think that I or anybody else can be scared into a job? If I turn up for an interview obviously stressed, I'm not likely to impress an employer.

The feckless

Single parents

Not all single parents (and let's be clear, they include fathers as well as mothers) are feckless. Most are simply the victims of once-good relationships gone wrong. They want to do the best for their Children. We see and hear about a lot of trouble caused by unruly children who aren't properly looked after. If single parents are forced back to work against their will, the problems of unruly children can only get worse. These parents have enough problems to deal with as it is. They have to choose between surviving on benefits in order to care for their Children, when they don't have much money to spend, or working to earn more money, when they don't have much time for them. To some extent, all parents face those choices in today's society, but the choices are always hardest for those who have least. As for me, I'm not a parent and I've never had any particular desire to be one, either. Perhaps that's why I remain a bachelor boy.

Child support

I've heard all kinds of horror stories about the child support agency, originally designed to help single parents. Even the government realised that it was a hopeless case and a new agency, the child maintenance and enforcement commission, was launched in November 2008, though it seems, at least initially, that the name and website of the old child support agency survives.

Of course, it's not anything that has any impact on my own life, but the non-payment of maintenance by absent parents is an issue of considerable concern to many people. Whether the new child maintenance and enforcement commission performs any better remains to be seen, but any problems will be different. The first story is about how they pursued parents for old debts. The question remains - is the child maintenance and enforcement commission going after the right people?

Anybody who has problems with child support issues should contact NACSA (National association for child support action in UK). I do not know anybody personally who has contacted them, but I'd have more faith in them than any government agency.

Pregnancy debates

In the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service?, some people suggest that women get pregnant just to be able to claim benefits. I don't know enough about the issue to comment except to point out that raising Children is never an easy option. It's certainly not a life of idleness. Abolition or partial abolition of child benefits would remove whatever incentive there is, but would affect a lot of working people as well as the unemployed and would also be a controversial policy. Perhaps Children of unemployed parents could be taken into care, so doing away with child benefits for the unemployed, but it would be an even more controversial policy and certainly wouldn't save money. The very idea is appalling.

In a discussion titled dole spongers, I found a post by a single mother, explaining that a day in the life of a single mother is not easy, which I reproduce here.

Whilst I agree with you on some of this, I hate the fact that now everyone on benefits is "scum".

I am 24 now and from the ages of 16-23 I worked full-time, usually more than 40 hours a week, and never claimed a penny in benefits. Then my charming boyfriend left me 3 months pregnant and facing life as a single parent.

I now live on income support, so probably in your eyes that makes me scum, but unlike a few people out there on benefits, I certainly do not have a lot.

Most if not all the money goes on my son. I often don't have a meal at night so my son eats better. I live in about 2 pairs of jeans and a selection of vest tops from the cheap clothes shops but I and my son are happy.

I am hoping to do a part time Learndirect course so that when my son who is 18 months starts pre school/school I will hopefully be able to get a better job and come off income support.

I know there are some people out there who abuse the system and who do seem to live a life that doesn't seam fair to people who are working, but I wish that society would stop branding us all the same.

And before you ask, I do not have internet, I'm at my mum's. LOL.

Here are some responses that illustrate some of the negative public attitudes on the subject.

What gives people the right to think they can breed and expect taxpayers to pay for it????? Get off your backside, get a job and maybe then consider opening your legs when you are financially stable to bring another potential benefit scrounger into the world!!!!!!!!!!

You should have had an abortion or be able to financially support yourself. There are many hard-working single parents out there. My uncle raised 4 (four!) boys by himself for 18 years after his wife died. You're right about one thing though, you are indeed scum.

The first response obviously came from somebody who didn't read the original post, which stated that the boyfriend left the woman during her pregnancy. The second response also came from a heartless person. If a woman gets pregnant in good faith, believing that she will be able to support the child, I don't see why she should be forced to have an abortion if circumstances change. The real controversy concerns women who allegedly get pregnant knowing that they will be reliant on state benefits.

The lunatics

People with mental health problems

I suspect that this is an extremely small category though it may be growing. I, for one, don't have any mental health problems. Sure, I decided to take a break from work in February 1990 because I felt I needed it. As explained in detail in The nineties job quest, I expected to return to work when I'd had the break but things didn't work out that way although I did eventually get a proper job again. Did I have a mental health problem when I decided to take that break? No, of course not.

The stupid

People with low educational achievements

Whatever else you say about me, you can't say that I'm stupid except as an insult. My contributions to Amazon's websites and my various blogs (including this one) prove that I have intelligence well above the average. As far as educational achievements go, I achieved 5 GCE "O" levels together with "Additional O" level maths. See pictures of my Certificates for proof if you need it. I would almost certainly have gained two "A" levels had I stayed at school for another year, but abandoned those plans when I had the chance of a career as a computer programmer. I'm certainly not the only brainy person to fall victim to long-term unemployment. I've met other brainy unemployed people (including at the waste-recycling centre) who also can't get back to work despite their best efforts.

Of course, stupidity is not necessarily a barrier to success. Kellie Pickler's success in music contrasts sharply with her performance on the American TV quiz show Are you smarter than a fifth grader?. Then again, it isn't necessary for a singer to know much about geography, unless that singer plans to travel the world.

The snobs

People who won't accept menial work

Really, this is a sub-category of the lazy. Anybody who doesn't appear willing to do menial work just to regain employment belongs in this category; however, it isn't as simple as some people would have you believe to get menial work if you have a history of well-paid jobs. Over the next four pages, we'll look at this subject in detail.

Too fussy? >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Too fussy?

2009-08-13T02:26:00.009-07:00

Too fussy?

Refusing job offers

There may be people out there who refuse job offers because they regard them as too menial. Let me point out that anybody discovered to have turned down a job offer that the jobcentre regard as reasonable risks losing their benefits. I have never turned down any job offer while claiming benefits. It is very easy to say that people should be flexible and take whatever work is out there, but there is no point in trying to do work that one is completely unsuited to.

Not easy to switch careers

Although I did a temporary bakery job at R and K Wise in Swindon as a teenager, my only real work has been in computer programming, as my CV shows. I don't expect to get a similar type of job despite the IT skills shortage, but trying to find an alternative at my age is much more difficult than you might imagine. If there is a job out there that pays at least the national minimum wage, then I'll do it if I'm given the chance as long as I feel that can do it to a satisfactory standard. However, an employer choosing between somebody experienced in a particular role and an unemployed person looking for a career change will select the person with experience in the role every time. They'd also choose a young person in preference to an older person in the vast majority of cases. The government might help here by providing financial incentives but I'm not sure how much difference it would really make. Insofar as incentives are provided, they aren't enough to tempt employers anyway.

Ignorance is bliss

One problem that affects people like me, which people frequently don't understand, is that most employers refuse to consider people who are over-qualified. In the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service?, one person commented

The problem is that people are blinded to the world as it is by the world as they think it should be. OK, perhaps you were a senior manager who was made redundant - now you're unemployed. Get over it, and start washing dishes.

Employers don't want to take on former senior managers to wash dishes. They will immediately think, "What is wrong with this person? Why is he/she here?" and it is clear that they rarely accept unemployment as a valid reason. A lot of people formerly in well-paid jobs, including myself, try applying for menial jobs but aren't considered. We're sometimes told that we're over-qualified. More often, we either get a standard rejection or no response at all. When I've discussed things verbally with recruitment agencies, I've been told in no uncertain terms on more than one occasion that I'm wasting my time applying for certain types of job because of my background as a computer programmer. I wasn't surprised at this, but I was surprised when the NHS (a state industry controlled by the government, remember) said that I couldn't go on one of their training courses despite passing the written tests easily. Apparently, the course was designated Level 1 and they regard me as Level 3 because I have GCE O levels. On that basis, I was not eligible. So much for being willing to take a low-grade course as a way into a low-grade clerical job from which I could aspire to higher things eventually. Here's an exchange, taken from the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service?, which sums up the problem.

If you can work you should work, at anything. None of this, "I was trained in IT / marketing / mining, so I have to work in IT / marketing / mining".

Really? So you are happy for a gas fitter to mend your TV, a motor mechanic to fix your plumbing, a carpenter to sort out your washing machine? People are trained to do things so that things can be done properly! Do try to use a little common sense. Electrical wiring installed by a marketing man would probably set your house on fire.

Another good illustration of the ignorance that a lot of people have regarding unemployed people is the person who said, with reference to those jobs listed in jobcentres

If you REALLY wanted to work and get off benefits you would apply for ALL jobs.

If he knew anything about the system, he'd know that nobody would be allowed to do that. Some of the jobs listed provide information that allows you to contact the employer directly but most don't. Why? Because employers don't want people applying for jobs to which they are obviously unsuited. For these jobs, the jobcentre filters applications for suitability before submitting a selection of CV's to the employer. If they don't do this filtering, the employer may decide not to bother supplying jobcentres with further vacancies.

There's also the matter of cost. A lot of jobs require postal applications but even where they don't, some people only apply for jobs that way because they don't understand computers well enough to apply online. Applying for one job by post doesn't cost much, but applying for a lot of jobs by post costs a fortune.

Somebody else said

Get these scroungers off benefits. Offer them three jobs. If they don't take one, then their benefits get cut. Simple.

It is clear that most people don't understand that the vast number of jobs listed in jobcentres are not exclusively for unemployed people, but are open to anybody to apply for. Most if not all of them are advertised elsewhere and, as a consequence, most of them are filled by people who aren't registered as unemployed. It is not within the gift of jobcentres to offer people these jobs. What the jobcentre staff sometimes do is tell people to apply for particular jobs, after which they may check up on progress. If they feel that the unemployed person hasn't tried hard enough to secure the job, they may take action, but they can't force an employer to appoint somebody they don't want to.

Somebody who has clearly faced similar experiences to myself, explained it like this.

It sounds fine, but the trouble is if you have been unemployed for more than a few months you become effectively unemployable. No-one will hire you for a menial job because you are over qualified, and they won't hire you for a job for which you are qualified because your experience is out of date or they think you must have something wrong with you. Some sort of solution that involves employers being required to actually try people, rather than relying on interviews and CV's would be better.

Employers' responses

Still don't believe me? Here's what one supposedly sympathetic employer told me.

Thank you for your application. The job advertised is a very junior position and therefore not suitable for someone with your experience. I notice that you have previous experience in IT so have taken the liberty of passing your CV on to our IT department. I do not believe they have any vacancies at present but I thought it wouldn’t hurt for them to have it on file.

Good luck with your job search.

I considered responding but I decided that it wouldn't do me any good, but I still have the e-mail somewhere and I can find it easily if I need to produce it as evidence. More recently, I received a very different response that might or might not amount to the same thing. I take it to imply a recognition that I could do the job if I were given a chance, but that I'm either over-qualified or too old or both of these things. Make up your own mind.

Thank you for your interest in the vacancy. We received a substantial response to this. Although your CV was of interest, unfortunately on this occasion you were unsuccessful,

We wish you the very best in your career.

Some people can't adjust

I assume that one reason for employers refusing to consider over-qualified people is their fear that such people won't adust. You may have heard the story about Sol Campbell signing for Notts County then quitting after one game because he couldn't adjust to life in a lower league than that which he'd become accustomed to. This is a perfect illustration of somebody being unable to adjust to life at the bottom, but it is a bad example. Sol Campbell didn't need to go to Notts County as he had plenty of money and he could in any case have secured a job with a team in a higher league. Most unemployed people don't have the luxury of vast riches to draw on. By assuming that unemployed people are fixed in their ways and can't adjust, employers miss out on a lot of potentially good workers.

A better sporting example is Kim Clijsters, who took a couple of years off her tennis career to start a family, before returning to work. Without a ranking because of her career break, she was expected to find the going tough because she would be meeeting the top players in the early rounds instead of being seeded to avoid them. Contrary to those expectations, Kim Clijsters was fresh and enthusiastic about playing again and won the women's US Open tennis in only her third tournament during her comeback. I don't suppose it ever occurs to employers that unemployed people might be more enthusiastic about work than those who have been continuously employed.

More excuses from employers

On a recruitment agency's blog, there was a very revealing article titled "Are graduates stealing your jobs?" (sadly no longer available), but the most interesting piece was the explanation for employers' reluctance to take on over-qualified people. Although the article was specifically about IT professionals, it could apply to many types of job. I quote

There are a few reasons why managers will not hire over-qualified candidates. The first, and essentially most important, being that over-qualified candidates will be bored with the work they are doing and will jump ship to a new and better opportunity as soon as it presents itself. Getting the budget approved for a new position, sorting through resumes, interviewing candidates, extending an offer, and taking an employee on board is very time intensive. The hiring manager only wants to do this one time, so all red flags will be addressed to prevent this process from having to be repeated.

Additionally, managers feel they will be pressured to provide that employee opportunity for advancement to meet their skills and abilities. Essentially, they hired you for a specific role and want to fill that role. By promoting you they will once again have to fill that role.

Finally, it is less common but managers feel that a candidate who comes in with an abundance of experience will want to do things their way. Whether this is true or not will be determined later, but as I said, managers want to prevent challenges as much as possible.

So the point I made about fear of being unable to fit in merits only a brief mention here (the last paragraph), but don't kid yourself because it is still a major barrier to overcome.

Government targets >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Government targets

2009-08-13T02:26:00.007-07:00

Government targets

Targets shown to be silly

The government's obsession with targets was always silly, but it took the Stafford hospital scandal to show how badly things can go wrong when people focus on meeting targets at the expense of doing what is best. Maybe the Stafford hospital scandal was an isolated example of hospital staff behaving badly, though I fear it may not be.

However, school league tables and the targets associated with them create a different set of problems. They aren't a matter of life and death, but they do affect the way in which children are taught, with consequences for their long-term employability. A school's short-term desire to meet targets that allow it to move up the school league table may not necessarily be in the interests of the children taught at that school. It appears that children are sometimes steered towards taking exams that the school wants them to take instead of those that the children want to take. I can see that, even in my day when there were no school league tables, there may have been occasions when the teacher knew best, but in those days the teacher clearly had the children's best interests at heart. Now, teachers may be more concerned about those school league tables.

Unemployed people also have to meet targets, even if this reduces their chances of finding work.

Quality versus quantity

Applying for jobs just for the sake of reaching some arbitrary target is senseless and may in the end be counter-productive, because employers resent being inundated with applications from people who aren't what they're looking for. Yet the whole thrust of government policy is based on the idea that the more jobs you apply for, the more likely you are to get a job.

Personally, I'd rather take my time and look for jobs that I feel that I have some chance of getting, even if it means applying for substantially fewer jobs. That's how The nineties job quest eventually yielded success, but nobody in authority takes any notice. So I'll continue applying for lots of jobs "just on the off-chance" because that's what the authorities want, but the responses I get from employers are not encouraging. Indeed, most don't bother responding at all.

Only two interviews since 2002

During The nineties job quest, I secured 21 formal interviews, all for well-paid full-time jobs. During my current period of unemployment, I have applied for a substantially greater number of jobs but only secured two formal interviews, one of which was for a part-time job that would not have removed me from the benefits system. I know that statistics can be misleading, but this one tells its own story.

No interview quota targets (yet)

Of course, the one thing that the government have not done is set targets for interviews attended. Perhaps they realise that it would be counter-productive. If there is no verification, there is no proof. If the government try to verify such attendances, some employers may be even more reluctant to interview unemployed people than they already are. Employers often complain about all the red tape they have to deal with as it is. The prospect of extra red tape just for interviewing unemployed people is very unappealing, especially as employers can avoid it by interviewing other candidates.

I can imagine that any attempt to set targets is likely to result in Stopping benefits to a lot of people, with far-reaching consequences. Some taxpayers no doubt think that this would be a great idea, but they'd have to pick up the bill as any savings made in reduced benefit payments would likely be outweighed by the cost of the consequences. Yet, I wouldn't rule out the possibility. The government might just be stupid enough to try it.

No truly unskilled jobs >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

No truly unskilled jobs

2009-08-13T02:26:00.005-07:00

No truly unskilled jobs

All jobs require SOME ability

There is an assumption that unemployed people can take whatever low-grade manual jobs are available. In fact, a close look at any of these jobs show that all of them, however low-grade they are perceived to be, require some kind of ability, even if it is only physical strength and stamina.

Warehouse operatives in real jobs often have to know at least some basic computer stuff (so that they can record stock movements), unlike unemployed people on New Deal placements, who aren't usually expected to touch the computers. Industrial cleaning jobs sometimes involve the use of hazardous chemicals that need careful handling, as do some warehouse jobs. Meanwhile, former office workers don't necessarily have the raw physical strength to do some of the physical labouring tasks. Mending fences, repairing roads and gardening are among other suggestions put forward as unskilled jobs that anybody could do.

You only learn that these jobs are skilled when you see how badly some people do them, and that's before you take into account that some people may not be interested in doing them and will therefore fail to do them to the best of their limited ability.

DIY disasters

We've all heard stories about people doing things themselves that they think are simple (painting, decorating, repairing, assembling furniture, gardening) but which they find aren't. And that's just for their own domestic purposes. Think of these disasters transferred to an industrial environment. I humorously described my own experience of Assembling furniture from kits (badly). More seriously, some people think that all they need is a teach-yourself book such as Collins complete DIY manual and it's then only a case of buying the tools and materials, following the instructions and everything will be just fine. Unfortunately, some people don't have the skills to carry out the instructions correctly, while others don't follow the instructions, either because the author didn't explain things clearly, or because the user can't read them properly, or maybe because they think they know better.

But still the image persists that some jobs can be done by anybody. Employers know differently, perhaps from bitter experience. So it's not as simple as walking into a jobcentre or recruitment agency, saying you want a job and being given one, especially for the long-term unemployed. If only it were that easy.

Could I stack shelves?

People have suggested that I could stack shelves. I could in theory but a lot of other people could stack them much faster than I could (because they are physically stronger than me), so no employer is likely to offer me such a job, and therein lies the problem. We all stack shelves at some time or other, even if it is only at home, but stacking shelves in a professional capacity is hard physical work if it is a major part of the job. Of course, if a job involves stacking shelves sometimes as a small part of a multi-task job, that's an entirely different matter providing that the employee can do the other parts of the job to a satisfactory standard. In those circumstances, any slowness at stacking shelves would not only be less significant but also less noticeable, in much the same way that my relatively slow typing speed (30 words per minute) was irrelevant in a computer programming job. There are plenty of other low-grade but essential manual jobs that need doing but many of them also require physical attributes or other skills that I don't possess.

My health is good

One person in the jobcentre suggested that if I'm not disabled, I should be able to do manual work. Well, I'm not disabled and I'm proud of my medical record as an adult, especially given how poor it was as a child. I've only visited a doctor once since 1970 and that was in 1986 when I was working away from home in Spennymoor and caught a nasty cold. I wouldn't have bothered with a doctor but the landlady insisted that I see one. Nevertheless, being in good physical health does not automatically mean that one has plenty of physical strength any more that it implies one has intelligence. At school, I was near the top of the class in most academic subjects, but near the bottom at physical activities. As an adult, I have maintained some level of fitness by walking where others would drive, but this isn't the same as hard physical work.

Whatever ability one has, poor health normally affects the capacity to think as well as the capacity to do physical things. Of course, if I were to be employed in a job to which I'm unsuited, I would run a higher risk of physical injury than those who are suited to such work.

Gym training?

If the politicians really think that unemployed people should do manual work, perhaps they should offer free gym training to ex-office workers to build up their strength. Would it be possible to use school gymnasiums outside normal school hours for such purposes?

You can't just take a job >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

You can't just take a job

2009-08-13T02:26:00.003-07:00

You can't just take a job

Competition is tough

Politicians and the public alike look at the number of vacancies on offer at any given time and compare them to the official unemployment statistics, which are artificially low thanks to various exclusions as I explain in Lies, big lies and statistics. They then ask why all those unemployed people aren't taking these jobs. The short answer is that nobody can just take a job. You have to apply for one, which immediately puts you in competition with other people who are also after that same job.

Many of those other people already have a job but seek a change. Others may be just starting out on their careers. There are also people who seek jobs but who, for whatever reason (perhaps their partner works), aren't claiming any benefits. We also mustn't forget all those people who are excluded from the official unemployment statistics, as some of them continue looking for work. If I could just take a job then I would, always providing that it was within my capability to perform the job to a commercially acceptable standard. But here's a rejection letter that is a typical response to an application for a job that involves a career change.

Thank you for your recent application in respect of the vacancy, but I regret that you have been unsuccessful with your application as we have received applications from candidates who more closely fit the job criteria.

Suitability

Given the kind of rejection letter I've just cited, it is unlikely that an employer would offer me a job that I'm completely unsuited to, but it's theoretically possible. In such circumstance, I won't last long in that job unless, of course, the government is paying the employer to have me, as is the case on New Deal. Apart from whatever effect that has on me personally, the employer, wishing to avoid a repetition of such a bad experience, is much less likely to be willing to take on other unemployed people thereafter. This may explain why the vast majority of New Deal projects are run by charities rather than conventional employers, most of whom would rather have their jobs done properly. The charities are primarily concerned with raising money for their causes and make plenty of it just by putting up with unemployed people. Any actual work they get out of them is extra on top of that. As long as most people can do the work to a reasonable standard, they are satisfied.

So the government and the public are totally misconceived in thinking that unemployed people can simply take whatever jobs are out there. I apply for a range of jobs, some more suitable than others, but it's significant that such interest as employers show tends to be for those jobs that draw in some way on my background as a computer programmer, with the most encouraging responses coming as a result of my applications for programming jobs, though my skills in that area are so outdated now that even they rarely elicit an encouraging response these days. Employers see from my CV what my background is and decline my application for most other types of job, preferring to employ people with a background that better matches what they are after, as my sample rejection letter illustrates.

Polly Toynbee's book

In her book Hard work: life in low-pay Britain, Polly Toynbee explored some of the issues involved, but did so by using a different identity and creating a fake CV. It would be interesting to see how easy it would be for Polly Toynbee to obtain low-grade jobs (even if she falls victim to redundancy) using her recognized name and a genuine CV, especially as the jobcentre from which she found the vacancies would filter her applications for those jobs that don't have a contact address. Many employers only allow their vacancies to appear in jobcentres without contact addresses to reduce bogus applications. Even if Polly Toynbee applied for those jobs by other means (thus circumventing the filtering process), how would she explain her desire to do such work?

If I were to obtain any kind of job by deception, I'd be in big trouble were I ever to be found out. It's difficult to imagine that I could have ever successfully covered up my past, but now that there's so much stuff out there on the worldwide web about or by me, it would be virtually impossible, as a Google search on my full name shows.

I'll keep looking

Yes, I'll continue to look for many different types of jobs including low-grade jobs, but trying to convince employers that they should offer such jobs to me is another matter entirely, especially as it would be clear in most cases that my only motivation is to get work of whatever kind. It may be easier for me to persuade an employer if the job is only a starter for greater things to come but at my age, I'm unlikely to be seriously considered for such jobs, as I make clear when discussing Sexism and ageism.

Some people half-understand

I've seen comments by people who say they don't count me as a benefit scrounger, so their anger isn't directed at me. Unfortunately, neither the politicians nor the jobcentres are interested in such distinctions, especially as some people do count me as a scrounger (and sometimes a fraudster too), as I explain in Am I a benefit scrounger?.

Time required to look for jobs >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Time required to look for jobs

2009-08-13T02:26:00.001-07:00

Time required to look for jobs

It's different being out of work

In the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service?, some people suggest that as people who are employed manage to find work despite working full time, then unemployed people should be able to do the same. People who are in jobs only look for new jobs as and when it suits them, in between doing other things. For unemployed people, it's an essential activity. Also, people looking for jobs from within jobs know what they are looking for and focus exclusively on those jobs.

Looking for work from an existing job

When I was looking for work from my existing employment, I mostly looked through the specialist IT industry journals Computer Weekly, Computing, Dataweek and Computer Talk, responding to various advertisements. (Yes, there were four IT industry journals in the seventies, but the two that remain each took over one of the others in the eighties.) I registered with the agencies and they did most of the spade-work. Finding another job didn't occupy anything like the amount of my time then that it has done in my periods out of work. I updated my CV, photocopied it as many times as necessary then posted it to all the relevant agencies. After that, I carried on with my life without worrying about the situation. If, during my freelance period, my contract ended without a replacement being lined up, I spent more time chasing up agencies but I had time to do so.

Much harder for unemployed people

Unemployed people have their preferences but cannot restrict themselves to those preferences. They need to look for other jobs too, but this requires time spent on research to find out what alternatives might be suitable, and to get re-trained. Unemployed people also need to take a lot more care about CV presentation. My current CV is only a single page (plus a two-page IT supplement for some job applications) but it is the result of much research and fine-tuning over many years, resulting in many CV improvements. Most significantly of all, recruitment agencies are rarely interested. Unemployed people cannot rely on agencies to do any spade-work. For all these reasons, unemployed people do need a lot more time to look for jobs than those in work.

Political interference

In the days when the government adopted a hands-off policy and unemployed people had all the time to themselves, time was not an issue. In recent years, policy changes have disrupted my plans for re-training and the new proposals that the government outlined in July 2008 will, it seems, even more severely limit the time I have to do proper job seeking. If my worst fears are confirmed, I'll end up accepting my punishment but losing a lot of my motivation for getting a real job. That's not what the politicians want and it's contrary to what the public expects to happen (they assume that such punishment will force me into a real job), but I've been on New Deal and I know how it affected me. I'll still apply for jobs, of course, but if I get one, it will be despite government policies and not because of them.

In the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service?, one person suggested that jobcentres could find the real jobs for the unemployed while those people are picking up litter or whatever. My restrained response to this is that the idea comes from somebody who clearly has no idea how the system works. Perhaps this is because the name jobcentre is a misleading description. Despite the vacancies advertised therein, these offices are not really job centres, but unemployment benefit centres. Of course, jobcentre sounds much nicer and that may be one reason for the name. Another may be to delude people into thinking that finding a job is easy. Some people have indeed been deluded, but such people will have their illusions shattered if they end up signing on for benefits in a jobcentre.

It's easier to get a job from a job

This is very true, as I know from experience both of changing jobs and of being unemployed. Some people suggest that, on this basis, forcing unemployed people to do something for their benefits will equalize the situation. I doubt that, because employers will know that the forced work isn't the same as a real job. Also, because the forced work is likely to be very low-grade, labour-intensive work with minimal equipment, it will be seen as punishment for being unemployed rather than anything else. Employers will still discriminate between those who already have genuine jobs (or who are just starting out on their careers) and those in forced work.

Immigrant workers >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Immigrant workers

2009-08-13T02:25:00.014-07:00

Immigrant workers

They find jobs in Britain

In the BBC debate Should benefits be linked to community service?, some people pointed out that immigrant workers, particularly East Europeans, find it so easy to get work in Britain. They ask "Why can't unemployed Brits get these jobs?". Others counter by suggesting that the immigrants may not mind working for below the national minimum wage and some of them may be here illegally.

Exploitation

Things came to a head at the beginning of 2009 in the Lincolnshire oil refinery dispute. I don't know much about the case, although I sense that the trade unions may have a right to feel aggrieved, which is a rarity for me.

One newspaper revealed the scandal of some of Britain's fruit-farm workers. It seems that these unfortunate workers are tempted by what appear to be high wages when compared to what can be offered in their own country. When they get here, they discover that the wages aren't so high after excessive stoppages are deducted for housing costs. I don't know if this is typical, but it is obvious why this particular employer wanted immigrant workers.

It's not just about wages

Wages are not the only factor that employers consider when selecting immigrant labour. Let's look at some other factors.

Language

The ability to speak fluent English is clearly not important to all employers, otherwise some of these people wouldn't find it so easy to get jobs. If employers eventually decide that it is a problem, they will change their policies where they are allowed to. We've already seen examples where some call centres were set up abroad, only for them later to be replaced by British call centres. The British call centres may be more expensive, but some employers found that they were fast losing customers because of their overseas call centres. However, other employers continue (at least for the time being) to use overseas call centres. In the same way, there are plenty of employers of other types of workers who are happy with the work done by immigrants despite any language difficulties but European Union regulations sometimes get in the way. You might think that doctors, nurses and dentists recruited from other countries would be subject to language tests, given that misunderstandings could lead to loss of life. However, those workers who are European Union citizens cannot be tested for their language skills. In view of the problems in the health service that are now coming to light, together with other cases such as the postmaster sacked for refusing to serve poorly spoken customers and irrespective of whether it was the right decision, one wonders whether immigrants should be required to pass at least a basic language test as a condition of entry.

Place names can be tricky

Although they're just one example, place names are a particular problem for foreign call centre workers. Names such as Gloucester, Worcester and Leicester can be tricky and add to customer irritation if pronounced incorrectly. Perhaps these places could be officially renamed Gloster, Wooster and Lester respectively to reflect their modern pronunciation, along with hundreds of other places in Britain, but I can imagine the public outcry that would ensue at the merest suggestion. In any case, the cost would be substantial as road signs, atlases and plenty else would require changing.

If England has difficult place names, Scotland and Wales offer no easy respite. In Scotland, you'll find Auchtermuchty, Brechin and Kirkcaldy (for the latter, say Curcoddy). In Wales, you'll find Dolgellau, Pwllheli and, of course, Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, though the latter is variously abbreviated to Llanfairpwllgwyngyll, Llanfairpwll, Llanfair PG or Llanfair. Many English people struggle with Scottish and Welsh names. I sometimes cringe when I hear Brechin mentioned in the football reports by English people who can't get their tongue round the Scottish "ch". Breekin is as close as most of them get, but it's better than Breckon or Bree-chin, which I've also heard. Being of Scottish parentage, I can cope with most Scottish names, but I admit that I find some of the Welsh names tricky. Of course, if I ever need to know those Welsh names, I'll make an effort to get them right. A lot of broadcasters clearly make no effort, as is evident from some of the comments they make. Even when they are able to pronounce a name correctly, they insist on continuing with their chosen pronunciation. Still, the issue here is about foreign call centre workers, not indigenous broadcasters.

Even if the place names are easy to say, there is still a potential problem with ambiguity. Some place names are used many times over. Whitchurch is a prime example, though most places so named are only of local importance, therefore confusion is limited. If you plan a day trip to Bangor, be sure you go to the right one. There's a Bangor in Northern Ireland, but there are two in North Wales, which occasionally confuse people. Racegoers should head for the village of Bangor-on-Dee near Wrexham, not the university city of Bangor on the Menai Strait. Another possible cause of confusion is Leeds castle in Kent, which is nowhere near the city of Leeds in Yorkshire. Also, while Stratford-upon-Avon has long been world-famous because of William Shakespeare, tourists will soon discover another Stratford in London, where the 2012 Olympics are to be held. I wonder how many visitors will end up at the wrong place. I heard a suggestion that the new railway station on the channel tunnel rail link was to be called Stratford-in-London rather than Stratford, which would help a little, but I think that it will actually be called Stratford International. As William Shakespeare is internationally famous, that won't help at all.

It is easy to see that employers in the tourism and travel industries need to be particularly careful when choosing call centre locations, but other employers don't necessarily have to worry about such problems - or at least they don't think they do. Fluency in the native language of the country you're in can mean the difference between life and death in some situations. I remember reading about an accident at a private level crossing connecting two fields (so it was only used by farm employees and contractors) caused by an immigrant's inability to read the warning notices on how to use it.

Youth versus experience

For those employers who aren't worried about language, one factor in choosing immigrants is ageism, because the immigrants are mainly young while a lot of long-term unemployed people are older. (Recessions invariably cause disproportionate redundancies among younger workers, but once the economy has recovered, we find that those young unemployed people have generally found work, while the older people generally remain unemployed.) Before the influx of East Europeans a few years ago, the government used to say that demographic changes would force employers to accept older workers. That didn't happen and the government eventually introduced anti-age discrimination laws. Legislating is one thing but changing attitudes is a different matter entirely. We've seen how other anti-discrimination laws introduced in the seventies took many years to show results and even now haven't been totally effective. Some progress has been made in countering racism and sexism, but disablism, sometimes called ableism, is still rife. By the time the anti-age discrimination laws take effect, I'll be long since pensioned off, if I live to see it happen at all. In any case, the laws as they stand in 2009 contain plenty of loopholes, making them ineffective.

Persuasive?

Another factor may be that the immigrants are more persuasive. Employers sometimes want to know why you want the job that is available, which is fair enough. If an immigrant is anxious to use the job as a means to practise their English, that may impress an employer more than anything that an unemployed person could come up with. It's not good enough to say that you want a job because you're out of work and it can be very difficult to come up with a good answer that sounds convincing, if the real reason is that it's the only job on offer. People accustomed to well-paid jobs are sometimes told to apply for whatever jobs are available, but trying to explain to an employer that they really want those jobs isn't so simple. Remember that an employer will select the most suitable candidate, which may not be the most needy candidate.

Brits won't do menial jobs?

Some employers have said that, even in the current recession, they'll continue to recruit immigrants to fill vacancies for menial jobs. They claim that Brits won't do these jobs. (The comment at the bottom of this page from Mary provides proof that sometimes it's true, though I don't know when Mary recruited her PA, nor am I sure that her job really fits the description of menial.) Surely employers have a moral obligation to at least give Brits an equal chance? Of course, if Brits don't apply for such jobs, then employers have no choice but to employ immigrants as Mary did, but if immigrants are given preferential consideration even when Brits do apply, that's a different matter entirely. It's actually a form of racism, albeit not in the way that racism normally operates. Recessions generally have the effect of lowering people's expectations, so perhaps Brits will be more willing to do menial jobs, at least for a while, but even if they are willing, employers have to be willing too, as I explained when I asked if unemployed people are Too fussy?. In particular, I mentioned this e-mail from a supposedly sympathetic employer.

Thank you for your application. The job advertised is a very junior position and therefore not suitable for someone with your experience. I notice that you have previous experience in IT so have taken the liberty of passing your CV on to our IT department. I do not believe they have any vacancies at present but I thought it wouldn’t hurt for them to have it on file.

Good luck with your job search.

No, I don't think I would have got that response from Mary if I'd applied to be her personal assistant, but I doubt that I would be the kind of person she was looking for anyway.

Social fund >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

Social fund

2009-08-13T02:25:00.013-07:00

Social fund

Useless for me

On the only occasion that I wanted to use the social fund, it was useless. As originally conceived, it allocated grants but it now only offers loans. Well, I wanted a loan to ease the cash flow caused by my landlord's decision not to accept housing benefit, but the rules are drawn too tightly. I don't think anybody thought about a change in tenancy management as a potential problem. In any case, I'm guessing that the rules were drawn up in the days when grants were issued and hadn't changed by the time I was interested. Really, we should be allowed to borrow a certain amount of money without question. Oh, I forgot. Unemployed people are just a bunch of criminals to be treated with contempt.

Perhaps the government retains the restrictions on what loans can be used for because they are subsidised. Well, I'd be happy to borrow from the social fund at commercial interest rates on the basis of no questions asked, since I can't borrow from other sources due to my former Bankruptcy. Remember that any money borrowed is deducted from subsequent benefit payments, so it's not like I'd be able to escape payment.

TV licence fee >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

TV licence fee

2009-08-13T02:25:00.011-07:00

TV licence fee

I don't like McCririck

The TV licence fee is a pernicious, regressive tax on those who have least. Once upon a time, in the days when I had loads of money, I had two televisions, one of which was portable. Both broke down within six months of each other during The nineties job quest, at which point I decided that this was one of the luxuries that I could do without. In any case, my main interest in having a television was so that I could watch Horse racing, but I can't stand John McCririck so any pleasure that I got from seeing the Horse racing on Channel 4 television was mitigated by having to put up with him. I liked the BBC coverage better, but there wasn't so much of it. These days, I go into a betting shop when I want to see some Horse racing. I'm not wildly keen on the betting shop coverage with all its interruptions, but I'm not paying for it as I very rarely bet these days, so it'll do.

Dumbed down

As for the rest of television generally, so much of it is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator these days that it's hardly worth the effort of looking for suitable programmes to watch. Nevertheless, I'd buy a television if I didn't have to pay an annual TV licence fee. Occasionally, there is something that I'd really love to see, such as Benefit busters, which would be particularly relevant to this blog. As it is, I can get the gist of the story from the internet and I'm interested to read what others write about it on their blogs. However, occasional series such as Benefit busters do not justify the cost of the TV licence fee to me, even when added to the sport and other programmes that I might watch. There are better ways to spend my limited resources.

Comedy series

During the seventies, I watched a lot of comedy series. I particularly liked Till death us do part, but I also enjoyed Dad's army, Last of the summer wine, Porridge, Open all hours, On the buses, Steptoe and son, The Goodies, Fawlty Towers, The good life, Father dear Father, Yes Minister, The Liver birds and Are you being served?. Later, I watched Not the nine o'clock news and I particularly enjoyed House of cards, but otherwise I lost interest in comedy series.

The natural world

I also watched various cop shows, quiz shows, nature programmes (especially Life on earth) and other stuff. I particularly remember an episode of Horizon in which scientists predicted that we were heading eventually for another ice age. Sadly, I don't remember any of the detail, but I wish I had in view of subsequent events. Perhaps the real lesson is that scientists are always looking for funds to conduct research. Climatologists have to say that things are going to change radically to justify their funding claims. In the seventies, they opted for global cooling. Now they've decided to go for global warming. Whatever.

Other programmes

Getting back to TV, I also watched a lot of political and consumer affairs programmes including Panorama, Man alive, Watchdog and That's life. I never bothered as much with music shows as much as you might expect, partly because there wasn't much on TV of what I really wanted to see. Yes, I learned quickly that if I wanted to choose the music, I had to buy it.

Black and white

Towards the end of The nineties job quest, somebody (who obviously regards television as one of life's essentials) took pity on me and gave me an old black and white television. I bought the necessary TV licence (much cheaper than the standard colour licence) but once I moved to Leicester, I got rid of the television and didn't renew the licence.

Treated like a criminal

Of course, you can't buy new black and white televisions these days and haven't been able to for many years, so anybody who has a black and white licence is treated with extreme suspicion by the TV licensing authority. They also find it hard to accept that there are people who don't have - or want - a television. Some of these people would, like me, buy a television if there were no TV licence fee, but there are others who just aren't interested at all and, given what I said earlier about dumbing down, it doesn't surprise me. I've had several nasty exchanges with the TV licensing authority down the years although they seem to leave me alone now except for the automatic letter that they send me once a year. I guess they've had their TV detector vans checking up on me and realise that I really don't have a television. But I still object to being treated like a criminal just for not having a television. Yes, I'm a criminal on two counts - being unemployed and not having a television. They haven't put me in Leicester prison or any other jail yet although, via New Deal, they have sentenced me to two periods of hard labour.

Watching TV on a computer

Incidentally, this is a good place to remind everybody that if you watch television programmes via a computer rather than an actual television, you are still liable to pay the TV licence fee. You won't get away with it because your internet service provider will tell the TV licensing authority if you watch television this way (they can tell by the URL). It's easier for them to catch you this way than with traditional TV detector vans.

BBC independence

Supporters of the TV licence fee claim that it protects the BBC's independence. I don't see how it makes a difference. The government, who would also be responsible for setting the budget if the BBC were funded by general taxation, sets the actual cost of the TV licence fee. Supporters of the TV licence fee suggest that if the BBC were funded out of general taxation, funds could be withdrawn at any time if there is a crisis in public funding. Of course, this is true of all public services, but for as long as the public want the BBC to thrive, any government who cuts funding too far is likely to feel the backlash from voters, just as with other public services.

No, the TV licence fee is a pernicious, regressive tax on those who have least. The attitude of the TV licensing authority makes those who do without television look like criminals. The TV licence fee must be abolished.

Chauffeurs

Some top BBC executives have chauffeur-driven cars to take them to and from work, which costs a fortune. Other businesses apparently do the same sort of thing. In both cases, the argument is that these people actually start work as soon as they leave home and they don't finish until they return at the end of the day. It all seems to be part of the culture that I discuss in Long hours for employees. I can at least see the argument for top executives being on call while going to or from work, which would be difficult if they went by train and impossible (unless they broke the law) if they drove themselves. For as long as the long-hours culture exists, they have a legitimate case for a chauffeur-driven car, but the long-hours culture is a problem in itself. No wonder so many bad decisions are made by people in all walks of life. People cannot think or act with a clear head if they are continually under pressure. Hey, I can cope with pressure too, but not if it is relentless. There have to be times in between when the pressure is off, just to re-charge minds and bodies.

Downing Street petition

A Downing Street petition to scrap the TV licence and force the BBC to fund itself caused the government to give a predictable response.

A debate on the license fee

I found a fascinating exchange on an internet forum, which I reproduce with my own comments on the next page.

TV licence fee debate >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals

TV licence fee debate

2009-08-13T02:25:00.009-07:00

TV licence fee debate

Exchanges on an internet forum

I was alerted to a blog entry in which a fan of the TV licence fee (who I'll call Bill) posted responses to a campaigner for its abolition (who I'll call Sam). I tried to respond to Bill's points but when it seemed that my responses weren't going to appear, I posted them here. Eventually, my responses did appear, but my responses here are more detailed and in some cases more up to date. All the original text is reproduced here, though I've corrected spelling errors and converted some of the key words and phrases into links, while clarifying who said what. These exchanges happened well before the demise of Setanta's UK operation.

One

Sam says Like the poll tax, the TV licence fee takes no account of your ability to pay, nor how much (if any) of the service you use. It hits the lowest incomes hardest by percentage of income.

Bill says You could argue the same about food, drink, cleaning products, petrol, holidays, cars, trousers or virtually anything else. In fact, income tax is the ONLY thing that takes account of ability to pay. Everything else just costs what it costs. So the TV licence fee follows the same pattern as 99.9999999% of things in the universe. I don’t think this is a strong argument. Plus, as a percentage of income it’s fallen massively since the 50s. It’s now about 0.01% of average income, whereas it used to be about 0.07% - not a huge amount in either case, but definitely cheaper (in real terms) now. In fact, it costs slightly more than 38p per day. Crippling? I don’t think so!

I say But the TV licence fee is imposed by government and covers all TV, not just the BBC. As to the % of income, this is only an average. And while it may cost an average 38p per day, you don't pay for it that way. People on low incomes have difficulty in finding a lump sum once a year. Crippling? For some people, yes. The other thing to note when comparing historical costs is that the cost of a new colour TV used to be several times the cost of the annual TV licence fee. A basic colour TV now costs less than the TV licence fee for one year.

PS - I think Sam meant council tax, not poll tax.

Two

Sam says When it started, there was only one use for a TV set, and only one broadcaster so a kitty type setup was fine, this has fragmented so much now that the BBC are a minority entertainment service that you can’t unsubscribe from.

Bill says Actually in the UK more people watch BBC programmes than any other channel. You may not like their programming in all cases (I don’t either) but that doesn’t mean your argument is correct. They’re not minority. They may not please everyone, but they have the largest share of audience, consistently, across all age and social groups. Fact.

I say It may be that more people watch BBC programmes than any other specific broadcaster's channels, but that doesn't in itself make a majority, given that there are now so many TV broadcasters. I'd like to see statistics, but if the people who watch BBC programmes aren't a minority now, they'll become a minority eventually, albeit a large minority.

Three

Sam says The BBC forces itself onto the airways and we are required to pay for its upkeep regardless of whether or not we watch it. £139.50 is too much to pay for reality TV, vapid sitcoms and endless repeats.

Bill says Advertisers increase the cost of their products to pay for the adverts they show. The average cost of an Audi car, for instance, would fall by £7,000 if they did absolutely no marketing. You pay £7,000 per Audi, just for them to advertise to you. The same applies to everything you see advertised on TV. In 2000 the average ITV viewer paid more than £1000 per year in extra costs on products they saw advertised. Comparatively, the BBC is cheap! And vapid sitcoms? Yes. But also David Attenborough, The Office, BlackAdder, Fawlty Towers, Boys from the Blackstuff, Simon Schama, the best news channel in the world (without a doubt)… stuff you simply WOULD NOT see on a commercial channel. The BBC chase ratings, but they also produce masses of FANTASTIC material aimed at minorities who would otherwise be totally ignored.

I say If Audi didn't market their cars, nobody would buy them, but even if your figure of £7,000 is correct, it certainly won't all be spent on TV advertising. There are other ways to advertise including sponsorship. You should look at the market for potato crisps to see the necessity for advertising. Golden Wonder were the UK market leader in the seventies and eighties. Pepsi bought Walkers, launched a massive advertising campaign with Gary Lineker as the front man and the rest is history. If the BBC allowed advertising, the price of advertising would come down.

Four

Sam says At worst a service that you never use. We are forced to pay for a TV licence, what ever happened to free choice?

Bill says True, that’s the strongest argument. But have you REALLY never watched ANYTHING on BBC, or listened to the radio? Do you ONLY watch ITV or Sky? I doubt it. And if you do, you’re missing out on Dr Who and Jools Holland (to say the least).

I say The TV licence fee only covers TV, not radio. I depend heavily on BBC radio, but as I don't have TV, I don't need to pay the TV licence fee. This is what makes the whole thing silly. It's not a BBC licence fee, it's a TV licence fee. As such, if somebody wants to watch ITV, they have to pay it as well as endure all the advertising, while I continue listening to BBC radio without being required to pay anything.

Five

Sam says This is a complete monopoly (For example, I am a avid sports fan, I pay my money to Virgin media and the only TV I watch is Setanta, Sky Sports and Eurosport. But the nice people at the BBC think it's fair to force me to pay them for channels I'm not using.

Bill says Well, you only have yourself to blame. In 1980 all sport was shown for FREE as part of your TV licence fee (which was about £60 back then). Now you pay about £40 PER MONTH on Sky, Setanta, etc - and extra for premiership games, top movies etc. If nobody had signed up for Sky, the BBC would still show everything you want. You VOLUNTEERED to pay £45 per month for something you were already getting for FREE. Is it the BBC’s fault that you made a stupid decision? No, it isn’t.

I say In 1980, sport on TV was limited. Live football was limited to international matches, the FA Cup final and not much else. Most of the sport on satellite and cable channels wouldn't be covered by BBC TV even if all those channels shut down.

Six

Sam says You wouldn’t pay £140 a year to tax a car that you don't use, would you? (answer yes to this question and you are a moron, and I will gladly let you pay my car tax)

Bill says I repeat, do you NEVER watch Dr Who, Extras or the news? Never? EVER?! And before you call us idiots, remember who’s volunteering to pay £40 a month for something the BBC used to give you for free.

I say Speaking for myself, I never watch them because I decided not to pay the TV licence fee any more. Actually, I watched very few of the programmes you mentioned even when I did have TV. I've done without TV for more than a decade and I don't miss it. Sure, there are some programmes that I'd like to see but can't. However, I don't want to see them badly enough to think that the annual TV licence fee is worth the price.

Seven

Sam says Every other channel funds itself by advertising, so why can't the BBC do the same? They are already screwing us over by showing BBC programs on Dave and UKTV, where they receive money from advertisements. They can’t have it both ways.

Bill says Why can’t they have it both ways? I mean, the government has prevented them from increasing the TV licence fee, so they raise the money they need commercially. Isn’t that what you argue for? OK, you may dislike the TV licence fee in the first place, but it is INCREDIBLY cheap (38p per day), and provides 20+ TV channels, 50+ radio stations and the single best website in the world (it was voted best last year). If they didn’t sell old programmes to Dave, the cost of the TV licence fee would rise to a terrifying 44p per day (ooh, how will we cope, 44p for about 250 hours of new programming every day!).

You should also consider this: advertising revenues on TV are plummeting. ITV lost 30% of its income over the last 5 years. If the BBC had to fund 250 hours of programming per day by ADVERTS, the few adverts there are would be spread thinner - especially as the BBC has the most popular channels. So the income of ALL TV would fall, and programmes would suffer enormously - not just the BBC, but everybody.

I say The impact on ITV revenues was a factor in keeping the TV licence fee last time it was reviewed, but there are other ways. The BBC could be funded out of general taxation. Raise income tax if necessary to pay for it.

Eight

Sam says I'm not saying get rid of the BBC, Just want them to fund themselves or allow us to opt out of their service.

Bill says I agree you should be able to opt out. But if you do, your radio, TV and internet hardware would have to be amended to prevent you from accessing BBC content. And the cost of doing that would be prohibitively high. Can you imagine what you’d pay to have a thing fitted to your car to STOP you from getting BBC traffic news? Or what you’d pay to STOP your TV, digibox, Sky receiver, walkman, PC and every other device from getting Radio 1? It would be massively expensive. So yes, opting out is a good idea, but utterly impractical. Similarly, I’d like to opt out of paying towards the Iraq war by having my taxes cut. But it’s never going to happen, is it?

I say Radio is irrelevant, as you do not need to pay the TV licence fee to listen to it. The internet is easy as the URL will tell them what they need to know. That just leaves conventional TV, which is still costly, but nothing like what it would be if radio transmissions had to be filtered. In any case, I don't think anybody would seriously consider doing that. There are better ways including public funding through general taxation.

Nine

Sam says Why not have a system like PBS, where the rich and famous provide donations or a system that allows those on a lesser income to pay less? (can be done by the individual's tax code/band) - I am sure the likes of David Beckham, Bono and Elton John to name a few, have got money to throw around. How about they contribute to the devices that got them their money in the first place?

Bill says So your argument is that you don’t like paying for TV, so you’d like someone else to pay your share instead? And the richest people are mostly city traders - how does the BBC make them rich, exactly? It’s just not a proper solution. And the poor pay less? Yes, I agree - but it is 38p per day, as I mentioned. That’s less than the cost of a Twix. How poor do you have to be before the "lower" threshold hits? So poor you can’t afford a Twix? Seems a bit extreme.

I can see why people dislike paying a TV licence fee, but absolutely none of the arguments against it take into account what the costs of abolition would be.

Frankly if you want to save money, start pushing for government to abolish ALL taxation except income tax. Income tax is the only truly fair tax, but it’s been slashed (to make tax look low) while other unfair tax has been increased. Scrap road fund licence, TV licence, VAT and all other taxes, and increase income tax by 5%. It would be a fair reflection of people’s ability to pay, and nobody would moan about paying for the BBC any more.

I say Public funding through general taxation is the best solution. That doesn't require any money to be spent on filtering, and would actually save money as nobody would be required to look for fraudsters.

Electricity meters >>

Contact me

Links

Other people's blogs and websites

Benefit scrounging scum
Benefits culture
Claimants action South Wales
Confessions of an immigrant on benefits
Diary of a Benefit Scrounger
Diary of a goldfish
Diary of a jobseeker (Justine)
"Good Communication Skills" sucks
(In)flexible new deal
Ipswich Unemployed Action
Taking it easy watching Jeremy Kyle
This is my blog (after a fashion, anyway)
Unemployed rabbit
Work Programme (scandals)

My related blogs

Career
The nineties job quest
Certificates
Jobs
Selected links

Political parties
Britain
Conservatives
Greens
Labour
Liberal Democrats
Plaid Cymru
Scottish Nationalists
UK Independence
United States of America
Democrats
Republicans
Australia
Labour
Liberals