IDS to put job advisors in food banks

[Joe-b-1 10]

Would a return to the workhouse type of system benefit some people.

It would provide a roof over their heads and meals, the two areas which seem to cause most concern.

 

Would you like to uninvent technology as well? All of us were worse off then so not a realistic proposition.

 

---------- Post added 28-10-2015 at 23:54 ----------

 

When you allow someone to not have to work for 30+ years, tell them they are too disabled to work, allow them to become isolated from the rest of society, then suddenly tell them that they now have to work, it's not surprising that some people can't cope. I am almost certain that the people in that article would have had much more fulfilled and happy lives if the same rules that exist today existed when they were young and they were "forced" into work as teens or early 20 somethings.

 

I agree absolutely but circumstances have changed as you said.

[harvey19 541]

But if people need to use food banks, struggle to find housing and work which causes the desperate effects described in post 7 on here why not do something positive to improve matters.

[Joe-b-1 10]

But if people need to use food banks, struggle to find housing and work which causes the desperate effects described in post 7 on here why not do something positive to improve matters.

 

Nothing wrong with the idea if that is the actual objective.

 

We all seem to have strayed from the original thread.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Joe-b-1

[999tigger 10]

From what I could see the thread was about IDS comments about the DWP putting in an advisor into foodbanks and not a general drone about people on benefits.

 

1. Its only a trial at the moment with 2 advisers being invited into a foodbank for one day a week there are lots of ifs, so it may never be rolled out. Seems to have been bigged up quite a lot. Other foodbanks may not be so keen. They need to get someone big like Trussell on board.

 

2. The foodbanks are not government funded so they attend as guests and with the permission of the foodbank. They are there to assist and not to check or monitor people.

 

3. Foodbanks collect their own anonymised data on people who use the foodbanks. DWP staff would need permission to collect personal data. As many people are reluctant to use foodbanks anyway, then i cant see them wanting to provide personal details.

 

4. Hopefully they can be some use and assist them with their claims or signpost them to suitable work resources.

[PeteMorris 10]

I won't argue that that is wrong. But there's a lot of people who would of fallen foul of stringent enforcement of the existing rules in any case. It really isn't hard to turn up on time once a fortnight. If I was late for work every day for a fortnight I'd be lucky if I wasn't sacked, I'd certainly face a disciplinary.

 

I think the whole "jobcentre" concept is outdated tbh. There must be more efficient and cheaper ways of doing it nowadays. Maybe fingerprint scanners in post offices? All the actual jobsearching is done online already.

 

Ummm..Actually 'claimants' have to attend the jobcentre every week. Not once a fortnight. One week is their 'signing on' day, where they have to demonstrate proof that they have actively been seeking work. Have their CV critiqued, and make any tweaks the advisor tells them to, regardless of whether the claimant agrees with the changes or not. Provide emails, or acknowledgements of job applications, even to the point of logging into their personal email accounts to review the jobs they've applied for.

 

The 'other' week is what the jobcentre refer to as a 'buzz' session. Where they have printouts of 'available' (there's a joke in itself) jobs.

 

People are divided into colour 'groups'..Like red group or green group etc...The times of arriving to sign on, or for the 'buzz' session, or indeed the group colours are frequently and quite deliberately changed. Make your own mind up why .

 

Which floor in the building and which room you have to be in, and which day are also changed.

 

Failure to comply with 'any' of the above results in being sanctioned, and usually the first you're aware of it, is when no money arrives in your account.

 

Like it or not, there's a definite (maybe unwritten I don't know), policy to make life as awkward as possible and to make claimants confused so they can sanction. I can't think of any other reason for all the unnecessary changed and hurdles you have to jump.

 

Yes I work, and if I was constantly 'late' there would definitely be consequences. But if they randomly changed my start times, and days of working, and other criteria, I would wonder if it wasn't a deliberate 'ploy'. Not to mention the legality of such actions.

 

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not waving a banner for all people who are unemployed. Far from it. I actually know of people who haven't done a days work in their entire life and are in their 40's, and I think it's appalling. Surely it's not that difficult to identify those people rather than tar everyone with the same brush.

 

Back on topic, I don't think it's even a remotely good idea to put job advisers in foodbanks. As far as I'm aware, there's pretty strict criteria for using those anyway. It's not like anyone can just walk in and be handed free food.

[cgksheff 44]

Reading past the headlines and then listening to what was actually said ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34658755 )

 

... it is my opinion that IDS was just fluffing to a committee.

He had learnt of a totally independent arrangement that has been set up at a single church-led centre that includes a foodbank.

 

As a politician he has presented this as "trialling" an initiative as though it was of the DWP's making when it is nothing of the sort.

 

Then the press pick up on it to fill their column inches.

 

Perhaps something good can come of it. I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

If contacts can be available to fast-track removal of sanctions, why not have them available in all Job Centres?

[RonJeremy 10]

I used to know Shaun Pilkington named in some of these articles. The reasons are correct. RIP Shaun.

 

http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2014/10/21/uk-welfare-reform-deaths-updated-list-october-21st-2014/

 

http://calumslist.org

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/more-80-suicide-cases-directly-5634404

 

https://streetdemocracy.wordpress.com/this-is-what-austerity-looks-like-suicides-due-to-bedroom-taxbenefit-capshardship/

 

This is very sad but there is no causal link and simply quoting four far left organisations to demonstrate really doesn't wash.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 10:38 ----------

 

Reading past the headlines and then listening to what was actually said ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34658755 )

 

... it is my opinion that IDS was just fluffing to a committee.

He had learnt of a totally independent arrangement that has been set up at a single church-led centre that includes a foodbank.

 

As a politician he has presented this as "trialling" an initiative as though it was of the DWP's making when it is nothing of the sort.

 

Then the press pick up on it to fill their column inches.

 

Perhaps something good can come of it. I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

If contacts can be available to fast-track removal of sanctions, why not have them available in all Job Centres?

 

"Fluffing" has been a redundant job for a few years now. Pfizer put a stop to that.

[TJC1 10]

When you allow someone to not have to work for 30+ years, tell them they are too disabled to work, allow them to become isolated from the rest of society, then suddenly tell them that they now have to work, it's not surprising that some people can't cope. I am almost certain that the people in that article would have had much more fulfilled and happy lives if the same rules that exist today existed when they were young and they were "forced" into work as teens or early 20 somethings.

 

Many disabled people have worked for years and then become either mentally or physically unable to work or hold down a job.

[sgtkate 10]

do we have enough jobs as a country for everyone on Jobseekers? Simple yes or no please because the answer to that question will clearly affect how we treat people on Jobseekers. If there ARE enough jobs then you could argue that everyone on Jobseekers should have one. If there aren't enough jobs then how can you possibly argue that as it will never be possible for everyone to have a job.

[999tigger 10]

Why do you let happ hazard derail threads. this was about foodbanks and the news story of putting an advisor into them.

[Mister M 1,596]

No sorry. That's a single case. You claimed there had been an increase in the suicide rate. Do you have any statistics?

 

This is very sad but there is no causal link and simply quoting four far left organisations to demonstrate really doesn't wash.

 

---------- Post added 29-10-2015 at 10:38 ----------

 

 

"Fluffing" has been a redundant job for a few years now. Pfizer put a stop to that.

 

I didn't claim there had been an increase in the suicide rates.

But you can't have it both ways Ron. On a recent thread about a family on benefits with loads of kids, you said that there were lots of family's like this, and when asked for proof you said that you didn't need any as your experience was all you needed to confirm what you knew.

 

The case of Michael Sullivan that I quoted is significant as the Coroner explicitly named the withdrawal of benefits as a causal factor in his death. There are websites such as callums list and the black triangle campaign which highlight the suicides of those disabled whose benefits have been withdrawn.

I can also point to a HoC debate in which MPs from all parties spoke about the experiences of their constituents, some of whom took their own lives, as a consequence of ATOS bungling: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/17/atos-attack-emotional-commons-debate

Edited October 29, 2015 by Mister M

[Anna B 1,401]

do we have enough jobs as a country for everyone on Jobseekers? Simple yes or no please because the answer to that question will clearly affect how we treat people on Jobseekers. If there ARE enough jobs then you could argue that everyone on Jobseekers should have one. If there aren't enough jobs then how can you possibly argue that as it will never be possible for everyone to have a job.

 

No there are not enough jobs.

 

Nor are the jobs that there are, evenly distributed. Might be plenty in the London area, but not many in Scunthorpe. With the disparity in house prices it's not always possible to move to where the jobs are.

 

Training is also very expensive and outside the pocket of the unemployed. If you're over 50, forget it.

 

There is a lot of government spin in this area, so genuine figures are not easy to come by, but the figures the government spew out are for show only. Statistics eh...