Well whilst I was at the joke shop today the woman said thought I had signed up for it (because I said I would a fortnight ago) but I read this thread and have never bothered, glad I found this.
She wasn't the slightest bit bothered that I hadn't signed up, and didn't try to claim it was mandatory, quite the opposite.
and this is what's confusing me ..... if this is supposed to be country-wide ..... why am i reading that different job centre staff saying different things about it!!!
WHO THE HELL IS RUNNING THIS JOKE?
and a question i was gonna ask earlier .....
when the job centre staff log on to your account, what do they ask you?
Managed to get through my last signing before Xmas unscathed
But got 2 of those jobsheets in return, so be wary those who haven't done their last signing yet as they are expecting people to keep looking over the festive period
I got caught out not by the job centre but at the work programme today and told me I had to sign it as it was mandatory even though I said it wasn't. She didn't have a clue about what has been happening on the site and how often jobs are not uploaded or that the site is American but she did ask me later, why was I so angry at the job centre. I'm not angry, I just don't want to be lied to or ripped off. All I want is a job and a quiet life and to be left alone. I showed her a print out and she said that unlike me, she doesn't have all day to read these things. I said I don't have all day either but seeing as it effects me, I would be an idiot not to look into it first. She made me sign a thing to say I'm not signing up and wanted to know what the job centre will say to me when I tell them I'm not signing and I said that they won't say anything because I don't have to do it.
when the job centre staff log on to your account, what do they ask you?
I don't recall them asking much. They will look at what 'recommended jobs' come up for you, based on the criteria you've entered. If you haven't selected a valid reason for not applying for each one, from the drop-down box, then you may be sanctioned. They also look at your activity record to see if you've done searches on there and recorded things like ringing an employer about a job or looking for vacancies on other websites. I guess that's the equivalent of looking at the old job search record sheets. .
I've told my advisor I've signed up for it, but I made sure to untick the box which says "I give permission for DWP to access my accounts to view jobs applied for and searched", or something like that. I didn't tell her the last bit though.
She seemed amused enough. She says so many people have complained about it, even the staff don't like it.
Never mind the problems with Universal Job Match, how many benefit claimants are aware that Council Tax Benefit is to be abolished early next year?. Not many it seems, which is a bit worrying when the majority find out they will only be entitled to the replacement to cover up to 67% of the their CT bill, and they will have to pay the rest from their benefits.
So only a 1% rise in JSA. A reduction in Housing Benefit, then a move to Universal Credit and to top it all, and huge reduction in Council Tax Benefit too. Not to mention under the UC rules now being proposed, your Housing Benefit can also be sanctioned not just the JSA portion.
So basically, once this new site becomes mandatory (which it will do, I have no doubt) and you refuse to have your CV and details sent to a job that you know isn't suitable, or is spam, or as a naughty webcam model, you could not only face just losing your JSA portion, but also risk homelessness too if the Housing benefit portion is also sanction.
I got caught out not by the job centre but at the work programme today and told me I had to sign it as it was mandatory even though I said it wasn't. She didn't have a clue about what has been happening on the site and how often jobs are not uploaded or that the site is American but she did ask me later, why was I so angry at the job centre. I'm not angry, I just don't want to be lied to or ripped off. All I want is a job and a quiet life and to be left alone. I showed her a print out and she said that unlike me, she doesn't have all day to read these things. I said I don't have all day either but seeing as it effects me, I would be an idiot not to look into it first. She made me sign a thing to say I'm not signing up and wanted to know what the job centre will say to me when I tell them I'm not signing and I said that they won't say anything because I don't have to do it.
I tried logging in with my government gateway ID (which I got last year) and it didn't work so I went to request a password recovery and apparently my account doesn't exist :rolleyes:
My advisor said not to worry though cos other people were having trouble and she blamed email addresses :rolleyes:
She then told me to make a new email address and try that....
I don't recall them asking much. They will look at what 'recommended jobs' come up for you, based on the criteria you've entered. If you haven't selected a valid reason for not applying for each one, from the drop-down box, then you may be sanctioned. They also look at your activity record to see if you've done searches on there and recorded things like ringing an employer about a job or looking for vacancies on other websites. I guess that's the equivalent of looking at the old job search record sheets. .
nono
what i meant to say was what they ask you WHEN they log into the system!
they asked for my e-mail address, but we as jobseekers don't login to our accounts with our e-mail address ..... so why are they using another way to do so
that's been done as a JOKE, just to annoy people with, and not even remotely a serious job position!
but continues to prove that they simply do not check the incoming positions ever ..... hell, look at some of them and their bad spelling and punctuation
I tried logging in with my government gateway ID (which I got last year) and it didn't work so I went to request a password recovery and apparently my account doesn't exist :rolleyes:
My advisor said not to worry though cos other people were having trouble and she blamed email addresses :rolleyes:
She then told me to make a new email address and try that....
I'm due to sign on tomorrow morning and one of the things my advisor expects me to have done is sign up for UJM. I haven't done though. Plus I've been signing on since November 1st and still haven't received a penny!
Things have changed a lot since I signed on 12 years ago. Back then they helped me to find a job with training in website design. When the funding ended after 6 months I was let go, but by the time I'd walked from work to the Jobcentre she'd already found me another job! After working for a pittance for the next 7 months they then helped me to set up my own web design business, which kept me in shoe leather for over 9 years. That was Labour's New Deal scheme.
These days it's back to being the dole office. All they do is tell you how high to jump and admonish you of the various ways in which you might be sanctioned. I've been into photography for some years and wanted to put that on my preferred jobs list but she said I wasn't qualified. (Without even asking!) When I asked what qualifications I might need she said that's something I ought to find out and then she added it to the list of things I have to do or else face sanctions! WTF?! :rolleyes:
I'm due to sign on tomorrow morning and one of the things my advisor expects me to have done is sign up for UJM. I haven't done though. Plus I've been signing on since November 1st and still haven't received a penny!
Things have changed a lot since I signed on 12 years ago. Back then they helped me to find a job with training in website design. When the funding ended after 6 months I was let go, but by the time I'd walked from work to the Jobcentre she'd already found me another job! After working for a pittance for the next 7 months they then helped me to set up my own web design business, which kept me in shoe leather for over 9 years. That was Labour's New Deal scheme.
These days it's back to being the dole office. All they do is tell you how high to jump and admonish you of the various ways in which you might be sanctioned. I've been into photography for some years and wanted to put that on my preferred jobs list but she said I wasn't qualified. (Without even asking!) When I asked what qualifications I might need she said that's something I ought to find out and then she added it to the list of things I have to do or else face sanctions! WTF?! :rolleyes:
New Deal (for all it's faults) actually had quite a good set of plans and advisers for those who wanted to set themselves up in business, including sub contracting to a specialist company set up to help new businesses get off the ground (Personal Evaluation Consultants if I remember). They were very good, giving help with business plans, understanding tax, contacts with local enterprise agencies and their free courses, access to further funding, providing references to banks for business accounts etc. All of that has now gone unfortunately. It's much harder to get the DWP to help start your own business today, and the rules of who is eligible is much stricter as well as more targeted. It seems to be pushed much, much less too. Last time I was unemployed they talked a lot about the help available to go into business for myself, but this time round no mention of it at all, and when I asked I was told I wasn't eligible.
New Deal (for all it's faults) actually had quite a good set of plans and advisers for those who wanted to set themselves up in business, including sub contracting to a specialist company set up to help new businesses get off the ground (Personal Evaluation Consultants if I remember). They were very good, giving help with business plans, understanding tax, contacts with local enterprise agencies and their free courses, access to further funding, providing references to banks for business accounts etc. All of that has now gone unfortunately. It's much harder to get the DWP to help start your own business today, and the rules of who is eligible is much stricter as well as more targeted. It seems to be pushed much, much less too. Last time I was unemployed they talked a lot about the help available to go into business for myself, but this time round no mention of it at all, and when I asked I was told I wasn't eligible.
Sad, isn't it? I must say that I liked the New Deal and New Labour. It was only their atrocious foreign policy that caused me to vote against them in the last election. (BIG mistake!) And by that I mean the atrocities committed in Iraq. Do what you will politically and you may or may not keep your job, but actually killing thousands of people is unforgivable. But I digress...
So I went to the Jobcentre this morning and was asked if I'd signed up to the UJM. I said no, then carefully explained why I was against willfully waiving my rights. I said that if a single person in this country faces sanctions for something that they signed up for freely or unwittingly then that would be wrong, that it's a very gray area the government have wandered into and I won't be part of it. I explained that I understand the efficacy of the system but thought it would likely be used against people, not for them, and that it wasn't even about my own privacy - I'd previously given one of the JC staff my username and password for indeed.co.uk so that I could show her something - it was a political issue. I said, "The way I see it is like this: If I throw you a rope it's because I want you to pull me out of the hole. I don't expect to be hanged with it." At that point he freely intimated that as a civil servant he had to uphold the current governments wishes, but that he didn't necessarily agree with them. The top and bottom of it is that they have no right to force you to sign up for the UJM and that I declined to do so. End of story. :cool:
Much kudos to the OP for alerting me to this issue.
More US states pursuing drug testing for welfare recipients.
Legislatures in at least 28 states are considering drug testing applicants or recipients of public assistance programs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This week, Oklahoma enacted a drug testing law; another bill awaits the governor’s signature in Tennessee. The legislation is part of an effort by the political establishment to make social services harder to get in the face of rapidly rising need.
“Hardworking taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to subsidize drug abuse, and this bill will help to ensure they are not,” Oklahoma’s Republican Governor Mary Fallin proclaimed Wednesday as she signed into law a bill requiring drug testing for applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. If an applicant is found to have illegal drugs present in their system—or refuses the drug test—they will be denied aid.
The wider use of RFID implants in humans may be inevitable, but such computer tracking should not go unchallenged - a full debate is needed about the ethical and health issues, argue Professor Nada Kakabadse and Professor Andrew Kakabadse
Highly charged terms such as 'human branding' enter the discourse. Orwellian visions of mind and body control are evoked. Cries of outrage are heard about invasions of privacy, aggressive covert surveillance and infringements of civil liberties. In 2004 - the US Food and Drug Administration approved an RFID implant, VeriChip, which was about the size of a grain of rice - for medical purposes. Nightclubs in Rotterdam in the Netherlands and Barcelona in Spain already offer implants to customers for entry and payment purposes. Some claim the Obamacare health act makes subdermal RFID implants mandatory for all US citizens.
We know that RFID technologies promise enormous benefits in areas ranging from security and health monitoring to business efficiency. But there is a dark side to the technology; a potential for abuse. To those with no love of individual freedom and self-determination - it opens up seductive new vistas for control, manipulation and oppression. To get an idea of how people feel about subdermal tags and provide a starting point for a much-needed debate about their use, we spoke to people representing four groups; those who have implants; those contemplating implants for their children for safety or security reasons; policy advisers, who have considered recommending implants to clients; and opinion leaders.
That's the one I used too and had to show it again at the job centre yesterday. The thing is, they should know this already and shouldn't need ME to tell them.
Never mind the problems with Universal Job Match, how many benefit claimants are aware that Council Tax Benefit is to be abolished early next year?. Not many it seems, which is a bit worrying when the majority find out they will only be entitled to the replacement to cover up to 67% of the their CT bill, and they will have to pay the rest from their benefits.
So only a 1% rise in JSA. A reduction in Housing Benefit, then a move to Universal Credit and to top it all, and huge reduction in Council Tax Benefit too. Not to mention under the UC rules now being proposed, your Housing Benefit can also be sanctioned not just the JSA portion.
So basically, once this new site becomes mandatory (which it will do, I have no doubt) and you refuse to have your CV and details sent to a job that you know isn't suitable, or is spam, or as a naughty webcam model, you could not only face just losing your JSA portion, but also risk homelessness too if the Housing benefit portion is also sanction.
Scary stuff when read alongside other cuts and changes.
I always thought that JSA is the basic amount that people are expected to need to live on. So, how does that tally with it actually decreasing? Which it will do if the rise next year won't cover the new CT rules or the bedroom tax.
I always thought that JSA is the basic amount that people are expected to need to live on. So, how does that tally with it actually decreasing? Which it will do if the rise next year won't cover the new CT rules or the bedroom tax.
Indeed, it just doesn't add up when taken all together.
There was a Panorama programme on last night that touched on the existing changes already brought in. The changes already made are one of the reasons (along with the crash in the economy etc.) that had resulted in a 23% rise in homelessness last year. Councils, charities and the like fully expect the situation to get much worse when the new changes come in, coupled with cuts to council services that is already seeing some charities who help the homeless being unable to help new clients, or even shutting down completely.
We're seeing a large rise in soup kitchens,
we're seeing a large rise in food banks,
we're seeing a large rise in homelessness,
we're seeing a large rise in household bills,
we're seeing a large rise in the number of sanctions (apparently up from a few thousand in 2010 to tens of thousands last year)
we're seeing large cuts in housing benefits,
we're seeing large cuts in Council Tax benefits,
we're seeing cuts in Jobseekers Allowance and other benefits in real terms,
we're seeing large cuts in council services,
we're seeing large cuts in charity funds and charities closing.
The future for many looks pretty bleak already even before the new changes come in.
Huge number of part time workers who today claim partial housing and council tax benefits, currently left alone, will be brought into the Universal Credit umbrella, and have to sign on for the first time, constantly look for more money or more hours from their employers, or find new jobs otherwise they face sanctions. They will also be sent on programmes like WorkFare or the Work Programme. Volunteer organisations and charities are worried too, because UC rules propose a cap of volunteering of 17.5 hours per week, and if a volunteer goes above that limit could face sanctions and loss of benefits. Plus when they are sent on WorkFare they could well have to give up their volunteering at a charity, and instead be forced to "volunteer" full time at the likes of Poundland instead, or face sanctions. So it seems it's not OK to volunteer at a charity full time, thereby actually helping the less fortunate, but it IS OK to "volunteer" full time at a private company who already reports huge profits. That just seems weird.
Then there are the proposals for a mandatory 35 hour job search per week for anyone receiving Universal Credit, and the belief that almost everyone broadband hence the electronic sign on system. Yet they fail to factor in that, with the cuts to JSA (in real terms), the cuts to housing and council tax benefits, many people may have to cancel their broadband subscriptions as they may not be able to afford them. Go to the library to do your mandatory 35 hour jobsearch, says Ian Duncan Smith and the DWP. Not at £1 an hour, and certainly not if you have no local library because it's been close due to council cuts. So go an internet cafe they say, certainly not at £1.50 an hour and staff aren't going to be too happy about a bunch of jobless people hogging their systems for 8 hours a day. Ok, go to a friends house. I have good friends, but most work and I doubt they'd be happy at me turning up to use their computer for 8 hours a day, every day when they are not there.
Many of the proposals really haven't had much thought put into then.
Indeed, it just doesn't add up when taken all together.
There was a Panorama programme on last night that touched on the existing changes already brought in. The changes already made are one of the reasons (along with the crash in the economy etc.) that had resulted in a 23% rise in homelessness last year. Councils, charities and the like fully expect the situation to get much worse when the new changes come in, coupled with cuts to council services that is already seeing some charities who help the homeless being unable to help new clients, or even shutting down completely.
We're seeing a large rise in soup kitchens,
we're seeing a large rise in food banks,
we're seeing a large rise in homelessness,
we're seeing a large rise in household bills,
we're seeing a large rise in the number of sanctions (apparently up from a few thousand in 2010 to tens of thousands last year)
we're seeing large cuts in housing benefits,
we're seeing large cuts in Council Tax benefits,
we're seeing cuts in Jobseekers Allowance and other benefits in real terms,
we're seeing large cuts in council services,
we're seeing large cuts in charity funds and charities closing.
The future for many looks pretty bleak already even before the new changes come in.
Huge number of part time workers who today claim partial housing and council tax benefits, currently left alone, will be brought into the Universal Credit umbrella, and have to sign on for the first time, constantly look for more money or more hours from their employers, or find new jobs otherwise they face sanctions. They will also be sent on programmes like WorkFare or the Work Programme. Volunteer organisations and charities are worried too, because UC rules propose a cap of volunteering of 17.5 hours per week, and if a volunteer goes above that limit could face sanctions and loss of benefits. Plus when they are sent on WorkFare they could well have to give up their volunteering at a charity, and instead be forced to "volunteer" full time at the likes of Poundland instead, or face sanctions. So it seems it's not OK to volunteer at a charity full time, thereby actually helping the less fortunate, but it IS OK to "volunteer" full time at a private company who already reports huge profits. That just seems weird.
Then there are the proposals for a mandatory 35 hour job search per week for anyone receiving Universal Credit, and the belief that almost everyone broadband hence the electronic sign on system. Yet they fail to factor in that, with the cuts to JSA (in real terms), the cuts to housing and council tax benefits, many people may have to cancel their broadband subscriptions as they may not be able to afford them. Go to the library to do your mandatory 35 hour jobsearch, says Ian Duncan Smith and the DWP. Not at £1 an hour, and certainly not if you have no local library because it's been close due to council cuts. So go an internet cafe they say, certainly not at £1.50 an hour and staff aren't going to be too happy about a bunch of jobless people hogging their systems for 8 hours a day. Ok, go to a friends house. I have good friends, but most work and I doubt they'd be happy at me turning up to use their computer for 8 hours a day, every day when they are not there.
Many of the proposals really haven't had much thought put into then.
You see if people look us can see all this, CK, why on earth can't these morons in power? :rolleyes:
Comments
and this is what's confusing me ..... if this is supposed to be country-wide ..... why am i reading that different job centre staff saying different things about it!!!
WHO THE HELL IS RUNNING THIS JOKE?
and a question i was gonna ask earlier .....
when the job centre staff log on to your account, what do they ask you?
But got 2 of those jobsheets in return, so be wary those who haven't done their last signing yet as they are expecting people to keep looking over the festive period
I don't recall them asking much. They will look at what 'recommended jobs' come up for you, based on the criteria you've entered. If you haven't selected a valid reason for not applying for each one, from the drop-down box, then you may be sanctioned. They also look at your activity record to see if you've done searches on there and recorded things like ringing an employer about a job or looking for vacancies on other websites. I guess that's the equivalent of looking at the old job search record sheets. .
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/tag/universal-credit/
She seemed amused enough. She says so many people have complained about it, even the staff don't like it.
I almost wish I was on JSA so I could make a point of applying for these jobs and asking when I signed on if they have wage details and that for them
So only a 1% rise in JSA. A reduction in Housing Benefit, then a move to Universal Credit and to top it all, and huge reduction in Council Tax Benefit too. Not to mention under the UC rules now being proposed, your Housing Benefit can also be sanctioned not just the JSA portion.
So basically, once this new site becomes mandatory (which it will do, I have no doubt) and you refuse to have your CV and details sent to a job that you know isn't suitable, or is spam, or as a naughty webcam model, you could not only face just losing your JSA portion, but also risk homelessness too if the Housing benefit portion is also sanction.
For those who want to read more, Wakefield Council has produced some examples of how claimants could be affected (based on current figures), as well as giving information on the proposals and what it means overall. Most other council sites just seem to say "It's changing, we'll have more information soon:
http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Housing/Benefits/benefitconsult/examples.htm
http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Housing/Benefits/benefitconsult/principles.htm
http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/Housing/Benefits/benefitconsult/default.htm
Scary stuff when read alongside other cuts and changes.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://consentrights.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/universal-jobmatch.pdf
My advisor said not to worry though cos other people were having trouble and she blamed email addresses :rolleyes:
She then told me to make a new email address and try that....
nono
what i meant to say was what they ask you WHEN they log into the system!
they asked for my e-mail address, but we as jobseekers don't login to our accounts with our e-mail address ..... so why are they using another way to do so
that's been done as a JOKE, just to annoy people with, and not even remotely a serious job position!
but continues to prove that they simply do not check the incoming positions ever ..... hell, look at some of them and their bad spelling and punctuation
Things have changed a lot since I signed on 12 years ago. Back then they helped me to find a job with training in website design. When the funding ended after 6 months I was let go, but by the time I'd walked from work to the Jobcentre she'd already found me another job! After working for a pittance for the next 7 months they then helped me to set up my own web design business, which kept me in shoe leather for over 9 years. That was Labour's New Deal scheme.
These days it's back to being the dole office. All they do is tell you how high to jump and admonish you of the various ways in which you might be sanctioned. I've been into photography for some years and wanted to put that on my preferred jobs list but she said I wasn't qualified. (Without even asking!) When I asked what qualifications I might need she said that's something I ought to find out and then she added it to the list of things I have to do or else face sanctions! WTF?! :rolleyes:
1- Bedroom tax on housing benefit.
2- Will have to pay 29% council tax.
3- Universal credit.
4- Sanction year.
Happy new year folks, i dont think.
New Deal (for all it's faults) actually had quite a good set of plans and advisers for those who wanted to set themselves up in business, including sub contracting to a specialist company set up to help new businesses get off the ground (Personal Evaluation Consultants if I remember). They were very good, giving help with business plans, understanding tax, contacts with local enterprise agencies and their free courses, access to further funding, providing references to banks for business accounts etc. All of that has now gone unfortunately. It's much harder to get the DWP to help start your own business today, and the rules of who is eligible is much stricter as well as more targeted. It seems to be pushed much, much less too. Last time I was unemployed they talked a lot about the help available to go into business for myself, but this time round no mention of it at all, and when I asked I was told I wasn't eligible.
So I went to the Jobcentre this morning and was asked if I'd signed up to the UJM. I said no, then carefully explained why I was against willfully waiving my rights. I said that if a single person in this country faces sanctions for something that they signed up for freely or unwittingly then that would be wrong, that it's a very gray area the government have wandered into and I won't be part of it. I explained that I understand the efficacy of the system but thought it would likely be used against people, not for them, and that it wasn't even about my own privacy - I'd previously given one of the JC staff my username and password for indeed.co.uk so that I could show her something - it was a political issue. I said, "The way I see it is like this: If I throw you a rope it's because I want you to pull me out of the hole. I don't expect to be hanged with it." At that point he freely intimated that as a civil servant he had to uphold the current governments wishes, but that he didn't necessarily agree with them. The top and bottom of it is that they have no right to force you to sign up for the UJM and that I declined to do so. End of story. :cool:
Much kudos to the OP for alerting me to this issue.
It's only gonna get worse.............unless WE do something about it.
Visions of the future with the likes of IDS in charge.
How about this happening :
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/welf-m18.shtml
More US states pursuing drug testing for welfare recipients.
Legislatures in at least 28 states are considering drug testing applicants or recipients of public assistance programs, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This week, Oklahoma enacted a drug testing law; another bill awaits the governor’s signature in Tennessee. The legislation is part of an effort by the political establishment to make social services harder to get in the face of rapidly rising need.
“Hardworking taxpayers shouldn’t be asked to subsidize drug abuse, and this bill will help to ensure they are not,” Oklahoma’s Republican Governor Mary Fallin proclaimed Wednesday as she signed into law a bill requiring drug testing for applicants to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. If an applicant is found to have illegal drugs present in their system—or refuses the drug test—they will be denied aid.
And the ultimate in control of the people:
http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2465/rfid-chips-in-humans-orwellian-nightmare-or-efficient-future
The wider use of RFID implants in humans may be inevitable, but such computer tracking should not go unchallenged - a full debate is needed about the ethical and health issues, argue Professor Nada Kakabadse and Professor Andrew Kakabadse
Highly charged terms such as 'human branding' enter the discourse. Orwellian visions of mind and body control are evoked. Cries of outrage are heard about invasions of privacy, aggressive covert surveillance and infringements of civil liberties. In 2004 - the US Food and Drug Administration approved an RFID implant, VeriChip, which was about the size of a grain of rice - for medical purposes. Nightclubs in Rotterdam in the Netherlands and Barcelona in Spain already offer implants to customers for entry and payment purposes. Some claim the Obamacare health act makes subdermal RFID implants mandatory for all US citizens.
We know that RFID technologies promise enormous benefits in areas ranging from security and health monitoring to business efficiency. But there is a dark side to the technology; a potential for abuse. To those with no love of individual freedom and self-determination - it opens up seductive new vistas for control, manipulation and oppression. To get an idea of how people feel about subdermal tags and provide a starting point for a much-needed debate about their use, we spoke to people representing four groups; those who have implants; those contemplating implants for their children for safety or security reasons; policy advisers, who have considered recommending implants to clients; and opinion leaders.
Read more: http://www.publicserviceeurope.com/article/2465/rfid-chips-in-humans-orwellian-nightmare-or-efficient-future#ixzz2F2ixNcY1
That's the one I used too and had to show it again at the job centre yesterday. The thing is, they should know this already and shouldn't need ME to tell them.
I always thought that JSA is the basic amount that people are expected to need to live on. So, how does that tally with it actually decreasing? Which it will do if the rise next year won't cover the new CT rules or the bedroom tax.
Amazing.
Indeed, it just doesn't add up when taken all together.
There was a Panorama programme on last night that touched on the existing changes already brought in. The changes already made are one of the reasons (along with the crash in the economy etc.) that had resulted in a 23% rise in homelessness last year. Councils, charities and the like fully expect the situation to get much worse when the new changes come in, coupled with cuts to council services that is already seeing some charities who help the homeless being unable to help new clients, or even shutting down completely.
We're seeing a large rise in soup kitchens,
we're seeing a large rise in food banks,
we're seeing a large rise in homelessness,
we're seeing a large rise in household bills,
we're seeing a large rise in the number of sanctions (apparently up from a few thousand in 2010 to tens of thousands last year)
we're seeing large cuts in housing benefits,
we're seeing large cuts in Council Tax benefits,
we're seeing cuts in Jobseekers Allowance and other benefits in real terms,
we're seeing large cuts in council services,
we're seeing large cuts in charity funds and charities closing.
The future for many looks pretty bleak already even before the new changes come in.
Huge number of part time workers who today claim partial housing and council tax benefits, currently left alone, will be brought into the Universal Credit umbrella, and have to sign on for the first time, constantly look for more money or more hours from their employers, or find new jobs otherwise they face sanctions. They will also be sent on programmes like WorkFare or the Work Programme. Volunteer organisations and charities are worried too, because UC rules propose a cap of volunteering of 17.5 hours per week, and if a volunteer goes above that limit could face sanctions and loss of benefits. Plus when they are sent on WorkFare they could well have to give up their volunteering at a charity, and instead be forced to "volunteer" full time at the likes of Poundland instead, or face sanctions. So it seems it's not OK to volunteer at a charity full time, thereby actually helping the less fortunate, but it IS OK to "volunteer" full time at a private company who already reports huge profits. That just seems weird.
Then there are the proposals for a mandatory 35 hour job search per week for anyone receiving Universal Credit, and the belief that almost everyone broadband hence the electronic sign on system. Yet they fail to factor in that, with the cuts to JSA (in real terms), the cuts to housing and council tax benefits, many people may have to cancel their broadband subscriptions as they may not be able to afford them. Go to the library to do your mandatory 35 hour jobsearch, says Ian Duncan Smith and the DWP. Not at £1 an hour, and certainly not if you have no local library because it's been close due to council cuts. So go an internet cafe they say, certainly not at £1.50 an hour and staff aren't going to be too happy about a bunch of jobless people hogging their systems for 8 hours a day. Ok, go to a friends house. I have good friends, but most work and I doubt they'd be happy at me turning up to use their computer for 8 hours a day, every day when they are not there.
Many of the proposals really haven't had much thought put into then.
You see if people look us can see all this, CK, why on earth can't these morons in power? :rolleyes: