Mr_Odwin Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 Any info on how they plan to separate those who can't work and those who won't work? I'd assume those that can't work are those that are signed off with a sick note by a doctor. In the current system they are already different to those that are just unemployed. I.e. if you are signing on, but don't have a sick note then you can work, or receive no benefits. That's my hope anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 I think they may be changing the system so they need to get proof that people have been applying for jobs. It's just too easy to go in and say "yes" when they ask you if you've applied for jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Odwin Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 There definitely needs to be something put in place that can differentiate between those that are seeking employment but are unsuccessful, and those that are not seeking employment. The former should be aided by the state, the latter not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 We have a similar system in Denmark of which I don't know the specific details. I believe the general idea to be that when you're unemployed, you have to send out a number of job applications every week/month. There does seem to be some issues with it, however, as it seems to hit both actual job seekers and those who have a valid reason for not working as well. But this is anecdotal evidence at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 I think they may be changing the system so they need to get proof that people have been applying for jobs. It's just too easy to go in and say "yes" when they ask you if you've applied for jobs. I believe you have to show proof (interview invites etc). Didn't they it would be something along the lines of "for those who refuse to work" i.e. if the job centre said "here's this job, apply for it" and you did, got it but turned it down then they'd tell...Cameron? :p Or whoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 I believe you have to show proof (interview invites etc). I stopped Jobseekers a year ago. At that point you needed absolutely no proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbob Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 I stopped Jobseekers a year ago. At that point you needed absolutely no proof. The only proof that is needed in the J/C is your Job Seekers book. And even that, you can fob off with fake jobs and interviews. They didn't/don't fully check. You get 5 minutes with the staff and thats it. I know this because my mother works in a J/C and this is what they do now. Before all this recession, they could check your Job Searching properly if they chose to (most of the time they didn't anyway). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 The only proof that is needed in the J/C is your Job Seekers book. And even that, you can fob off with fake jobs and interviews. They didn't/don't fully check. You get 5 minutes with the staff and thats it. Huh? You're supposed to write in the Job Seekers book??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbob Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 Huh? You're supposed to write in the Job Seekers book??? Yes . I be guessing you didn't do this. Like i said, it can be fobbed off with fake info too easily. Most of Caldicot do it just to avoid work/proper job searching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raining_again Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 I say take the money off the ones that don't work rather than the ones that do... Raise in national insurance, no way in hell, i contribute more than enough for my wage. These sorts of rises destroy people at my level, the ones making <= £1000 after tax. Just £50 less a month could mean the difference between getting your groceries or not! Why should we suffer more as workers when there are still scum on the dole, buying fags, booze and drugs with their money... (and yes I'm MORE than well aware that there are genuine job seekers, especially in these times) Oh yeah and don't get me started on that bloody ema college payment system .... Yes i'm getting old and grumpy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr-Paul Posted May 13, 2010 Share Posted May 13, 2010 I say take the money off the ones that don't work rather than the ones that do... Raise in national insurance, no way in hell, i contribute more than enough for my wage. These sorts of rises destroy people at my level, the ones making <= £1000 after tax. Just £50 less a month could mean the difference between getting your groceries or not! Why should we suffer more as workers when there are still scum on the dole, buying fags, booze and drugs with their money... (and yes I'm MORE than well aware that there are genuine job seekers, especially in these times) Oh yeah and don't get me started on that bloody ema college payment system .... Yes i'm getting old and grumpy... Yeah the EMA system is totally flawed and needs revamping. I think that I heard that the NI rise will only affect those earning £20,000 or more, so won't leave those on low incomes with less money, in the next few years they will become richer due to the £10,000 income tax threshold they want to bring in. And I totally understand the bad feelings regarding "scum" who don't work, and we need to help more people back into work and give them incentives to work rather than sit on the dole. But, you have to be careful or they might just end up on the streets or end up in a worse position if you cut their benefits, and as much as you think they may deserve it, it wouldn't be good for the country. It's very difficult to get a solution which maintains the welfare of all people in the country fairly and equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raining_again Posted May 14, 2010 Share Posted May 14, 2010 Yeah the EMA system is totally flawed and needs revamping. I think that I heard that the NI rise will only affect those earning £20,000 or more, so won't leave those on low incomes with less money, in the next few years they will become richer due to the £10,000 income tax threshold they want to bring in. And I totally understand the bad feelings regarding "scum" who don't work, and we need to help more people back into work and give them incentives to work rather than sit on the dole. But, you have to be careful or they might just end up on the streets or end up in a worse position if you cut their benefits, and as much as you think they may deserve it, it wouldn't be good for the country. It's very difficult to get a solution which maintains the welfare of all people in the country fairly and equally. The ema system needs removed completely. We did without it before so I don't know why its needed now. (I never got any of it and I was fine!) Besides, college study is optional, if you can't be arsed to go you don't deserve to get a decent job. Other than that I agree with you completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 Extra university places and school services in England are to be cut in the coalition government's drive to reduce public spending. Cuts of £200m to the university budget will mean 10,000 fewer extra places than had been announced. The Department for Education is to be cut by £670m - including £311m for council spending on schools. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/10146380.stm What do people think of this? Personally I don't think it will matter as there are far too many people who go to uni and just doss around. Although the trouble will be differentiating the people who will doss around with those that generally want to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 I'm kind of upset they cut Becta. That could have been really useful (then again I don't know that much about it to rate its actual success vs goals). In regards to university...I'm not there any more :p But yeah I think Labour caused somewhat of a problem by having this 50% goal in mind as a lot of people just seem to go because its 'natural' to carry on doing that, or they don't know what else to do and it seems like free living for a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 In regards to university...I'm not there any more :p But yeah I think Labour caused somewhat of a problem by having this 50% goal in mind as a lot of people just seem to go because its 'natural' to carry on doing that, or they don't know what else to do and it seems like free living for a few years. I agree. I think schools need to show other options such as apprenticeships, training schemes or working through a career path. They just seem to say "GCSEs, A levels and university or your life will be over." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan_Dare Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/10146380.stm What do people think of this? Personally I don't think it will matter as there are far too many people who go to uni and just doss around. Although the trouble will be differentiating the people who will doss around with those that generally want to go. I think there's too many people at uni- most of them are just there because they don't know what else to do and the default stance in schools is to say 'go to uni, it's best for everyone' which is balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoogleViper Posted May 24, 2010 Share Posted May 24, 2010 I think there's too many people at uni- most of them are just there because they don't know what else to do and the default stance in schools is to say 'go to uni, it's best for everyone' which is balls. That's a very good point you've made there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicktendo Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 50% of people going to uni is something that really irked me about Labour. How can you differentiate between the most apt academic people when 1 in 2 has a degree? This means that getting a first or 2:1 becomes compulsory to lead to any success and even after that, doing a Masters is the only way to really separate yourself from the crowd, along with an extra £5-10K worth of debt. Made even worse by these fucking clowns (just like at my uni - Leeds Met) who say that they came to university for 'the nightlife' RAGE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The fish Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Made even worse by these fucking clowns (just like at my uni - Leeds Met) who say that they came to university for 'the nightlife' RAGE. The one advantage of my course (civil engineering) is that you can't doss about even in the first year, so by year two, there's not a clown to be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted May 25, 2010 Share Posted May 25, 2010 Yeah if they thought about it a bit better they could just get a fairly loose (ie flexible) job in a university town and go out during the student nights. Cheap drinks but without the lingering debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts