Work experts target housing estates

Readers' comments (5)

• The Reaper | 10/03/2010 11:52 am

  12 Million. They could create another 500 outreach positions with that money.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Ringo Smith | 10/03/2010 3:56 pm

  Another new government 'scheme'. Do any of these actually work? Why doesn't the government focus on people who actually want to do something with their lives. Cut student tuttion fees.There is a good example. The brightest talents in the country forced into years of student debt. All the government seem to do is throw billions of pounds on anti gun/knife campaigns,ASB campaigns, Sending young offenders on hoildays etc etc. PLEASE STOP REWARDING FAILURE. If these people they are targeting want a job or retraining, then why can't THEY go to the job centres? Why should the government spend 12m they haven't got taking job centres to lazy peoples doorsteps??? It is just too easy in this country, want a job? Don't go to the job centre, they will come to you whilst you are at home watching tele! lol FREE BRITAIN. That is why everyone is fighting to come here.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• dgeorgea | 12/03/2010 10:47 am

  >If these people they are targeting want a job or retraining, then why can't THEY go to the job centres?
  
  If they are on JSA then they do. However JSA is just one benefit. In Southwark, one of the areas mentioned, you cannot even get into the job centre unless you have a signing on card or an appointment letter. The job centre in SE1 usually have 3 to 4 guards on the door to keep others out.
  
  During the last 6 months advisors have had the time they can spend with clients by 60%, giving them time to check the work book to see they have been looking for work and to sign them on. Due to the increased numbers of unemployed.
  
  So unless you are on JSA job centres are a no no in some parts.
  
  And yes compared to the job centre these schemes are very effective in helping people back to work. You can apply for as many jobs as you like, if your application form or cv is not selling you right then you will likely not get a job. If you numeracy or litracy skills are poor your chances are lowered, poor interview skills will reduce your chances further. All these need to be worked on.
  
  Add other issues; health, disability, non English speaking and it becomes more difficult to get work and more intervention is needed to help people back into work. Most of which job centres do not have the time or resources to deal with.
  
  Of course nothing should be done about these issues, those who work are more than happy to keep footing the bill so they can feel superior rather than trying to resolve the problems and reduce the costs on the tax payers.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Kev Dupree | 12/03/2010 3:48 pm

  dgeorgea - you seem to be giving the impression that the reason most people cannot get jobs is because they cannot access the job centre (even though they could simply book an appointment) or they don't have the relevant support.
  
  This argument is based on the principle that all recipients of JSA are genuinely looking for work. The unfortunate fact is that a large demographic do not have the necessary skills and experience to gain employment which pays much above minimum wage. For this reason many recipients have no motivation to work for 37 hours a week and receive little more money than they would on benefits.
  
  Although extra resources are required for job centres (your example seems a little extreme, in my local centre you can usually see an advisor on the day) you must realise that people's lack of transferable skills and motivation is the primary barrier to many gaining employment.
  
  I think if you asked people if they would prefer lower taxes or “a feeling of superiority” they would go for the lower taxes. Worklessness does not only require money to pay JSA and other benefits, it is also often the driving factor behind many forms of criminal activity, ASB and other socio-economic problems.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• dgeorgea | 13/03/2010 9:56 am

  Kev,
  
  On the contrary, the principle of my argument was that not all long term unemployed are lazy failures as suggested by Ringo.
  
  Ringo also suggested that the government should not be spending money trying to help these lazy failures. So assumedly he is happy for any taxes he pays to continue supporting these lazy failures and dealing with the consequences rather than trying to invest some money to turn the situation round.
  
  Slightly bemused you object to what I had to say, but nothing for the post that caused the response.
  
  While you may find the example I gave as extreme it is what happens in SE1. As I said you do get to see an advisor when you sign on, but your time with them is very limited. And no, you cannot ring up for an appointment to just use the job points to see what jobs there are.
  
  So are you saying that poor education, not knowing how to fill in cv's and application forms to get noticed, poor interview skills, poor health, disability and not speaking English do not act as barriers to employment opportunities of those who have been out of work long term but wanting to work?
  
  I have not denied that the economics of minimum wages does not act as a barrier, or that criminal activities can supplement benefits for little effort. I chose not to include it. Just as we have both chosen to ignore all those not in paid work but are unofficial full time carers for relatives and not realy in a position to work.
  
  In SE1 the local job centre is not the right agency to tackle many of these issues and there are a number of of local agencies, including charities, a housing association and private companies who are proving far more successful than the job centre. Providing a range of work shops, practical help on things like cv's, application forms, spec letters, to getting basic certificates and helping with some of the practical things like work experience, travel costs, suitable clothes or tools. Even down to spending the time necessary to help prepare people so they know what benefits would be open to them on a particular wages.
  
  While I would totaly agree with the last paragraph how would you view Ringo's (and many like him) attitude of lazy failures and government should not be spending money trying to help them or the problems you have highlighted?
  
  I packed up work in October 2005 from a busy warehouse because my sciatica had got so bad I could hardly function. In that time I have managed to secure just three short term contracts, the longest lasting 5 months. I quickly learned not to mention to advisors what I was doing to help myself because many do not know their own rules and are only interested in threatening you if you are not physically looking for work every day. They are not interested if you are doing training to help increase your chances. Why are you volunteering, why can they not pay you? All they want to see is your booklet showing you have looked for work, even if you have gone in and sat down and written out two weeks of 'job searching' in front of them.
  
  I am rightly proud of my achievements as a volunteer and how much I have used the opportunities to improve my employability - much to the disgust of people like Kass who seems to believe my landlord should have done it all for me. Fortunately I have secured a job, even if it is only guaranteed for a year, but if this new team could offer me further help to get back into work I would take it. All considered I think my response to being called a lazy failure by Ringo quite constrained. If my response to him of 'feeling superior' to me and I should not receive any help so he can continue feeling superior offends you so be it.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment