Comment
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.
