Strivers vs Skivers

[joescrivens]

makes an interesting read

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/11/strivers-v-skivers-divisive-notion?CMP=twt_gu

 

[AJQS]

Certainly does, not that I'm that dim as to think like that in the first place it's still interesting.

 

[PMK]

I think some on here will find the evidence hard to believe, but facts haven't gotten in the way previously of peoples discriminatory ways.

Good post.

 

[srichards]

I wonder if there's a correlation between thinking benefit recipients are all skivers and shameless being on TV?

 

[new2me]

I wonder if there's a correlation between thinking benefit recipients are all skivers and shameless being on TV?

Doubt it. Remember Bread?

 

[magicaxeman]

All I know is Cameron stating "no genuinely disabled person will be worse off under the new systems".. I'm already over £100 per month worse off thanks to his reform

 

[AHILL]

All I know is Cameron stating "no genuinely disabled person will be worse off under the new systems".. I'm already over £100 per month worse off thanks to his reform

Has this affected your quality of life?
if so how?

 

[Garry Edwards]

As I see it, one of the problems with the benefits system is its complexity - instead of it all being under one roof, there are multiple agencies each responsible for different benefits. Because of this, the people who really need benefits often don't get what they're entitled to, to get their entitlement they need to
1. Know what their entitlements actually are
2. "Negotiate" with various inefficient and unhelpful agencies.

Conversely, the people who live on benefits permanently are very likely to get every bit of help going. One of their advantages is that their own social network is likely to include other people with the same attitude and the same lifestyle, and they share information and make sure that they get everything that's available.

Successive governments have tightened up the benefits system for years, in an attempt to prevent fraud, but from what I hear, the people who actually lose out tend to be the genuine cases, not the fraudulent claimants, who are expert at navigating the rules.

Then there are the fraud investigators, who are often unreasonable bullies who target people who make the tiniest of mistakes when claiming. All that these people seem to be interested in is getting convictions, they seem to apply no discretion and no common sense. Again, it's the innocent who suffer, the guilty know their way around the system.
Once they discover any irregularity, they claw back ALL of the benefits paid to that person as an overpayment, not just the amount actually overpaid. They may prosecute as well, and even if the person is found not guilty, they still claw back the benefits - they are judge, jury and executioner in these cases, and that is just plain wrong.

The government (of whatever political party happens to be in power) could easily change this, simply by creating a one stop shop for claimants, but doesn't. Of course, having a one stop shop wouldn't address the attitude problem that some of the staff have, but then that could be cured by turning some of the staff into claimants...

 

[ding76uk]

As I see it, one of the problems with the benefits system is its complexity - instead of it all being under one roof, there are multiple agencies each responsible for different benefits. Because of this, the people who really need benefits often don't get what they're entitled to, to get their entitlement they need to
1. Know what their entitlements actually are
2. "Negotiate" with various inefficient and unhelpful agencies.

Conversely, the people who live on benefits permanently are very likely to get every bit of help going. One of their advantages is that their own social network is likely to include other people with the same attitude and the same lifestyle, and they share information and make sure that they get everything that's available.

Successive governments have tightened up the benefits system for years, in an attempt to prevent fraud, but from what I hear, the people who actually lose out tend to be the genuine cases, not the fraudulent claimants, who are expert at navigating the rules.

Then there are the fraud investigators, who are often unreasonable bullies who target people who make the tiniest of mistakes when claiming. All that these people seem to be interested in is getting convictions, they seem to apply no discretion and no common sense. Again, it's the innocent who suffer, the guilty know their way around the system.
Once they discover any irregularity, they claw back ALL of the benefits paid to that person as an overpayment, not just the amount actually overpaid. They may prosecute as well, and even if the person is found not guilty, they still claw back the benefits - they are judge, jury and executioner in these cases, and that is just plain wrong.

The government (of whatever political party happens to be in power) could easily change this, simply by creating a one stop shop for claimants, but doesn't. Of course, having a one stop shop wouldn't address the attitude problem that some of the staff have, but then that could be cured by turning some of the staff into claimants...

This is the problem with the payment by results and target setting culture that has become prevalent lately. If you have a target to hit, you hit it however you can and for as much as you can otherwise it is your job on the line.

It is the same with the government back to work schemes, they don't care about helping (management) and those that do find themselves unable to as by doing what people actually need will mean targets etc. are not hit.

It is purely a case of screw the individual as long as targets are met, to create the figures the government wants. You will find most aren't bullies, just doing what they have to do to stay in their job.

 

[HMansfield]

Then there are the fraud investigators, who are often unreasonable bullies who target people who make the tiniest of mistakes when claiming.

It's not even at the stage of fraud investigators. The low level advisors are given targets to hit of how many people they must report each week. If the claimants (or "customers", as they refer to them as) aren't making the mistakes, then the advisors will quite literally set them up.

I had it done to me, I saw it done to others, and I had advisors admit they'd done it deliberately when I had them investigated for it.
DWP is a dirty, dirty culture where the unemployed are looked upon as though they're criminals and deserve every bit of misery that can be bestowed upon them.

 

[Garry Edwards]

It's not even at the stage of fraud investigators. The low level advisors are given targets to hit of how many people they must report each week. If the claimants (or "customers", as they refer to them as) aren't making the mistakes, then the advisors will quite literally set them up.

I had it done to me, I saw it done to others, and I had advisors admit they'd done it deliberately when I had them investigated for it.
DWP is a dirty, dirty culture where the unemployed are looked upon as though they're criminals and deserve every bit of misery that can be bestowed upon them.

This, and the post above it, are now making some sense of my post.
I'm not a claimant, but I know someone who is. Her son sold a small piece of land, and the sale money was supposed to come to me but the cheque was wrongly made out to her.

So, she paid it into her own bank account and, as soon as the payment cleared, she transferred it to me. She had it in her account for just 3 days, it wasn't her money and she didn't touch it.

But, for 3 days, she was theoretically over the limit of the amount of cash she could have, and there has now been a fraud investigation going on for well over a year.

The long-established principle in criminal law is that in the absence of mens rea (criminal intent) there can be no crime - but the attitude of some of the administrators in the benefits system seems to indicate that they feel that they are above the law.

 

[AJQS]

When I was on benefits the weak link in the chain was always the local council and their housing benefits section, not the DWP. Powys Council in particular. :thumbsdown:

 

[Steve Smith]

but the attitude of some of the administrators in the benefits system seems to indicate that they feel that they are above the law.

I haven't had much contact with the benefits system but about 25 years ago, I was unemployed for about five months. There were probably about 1.5 million unemployed in the country at the time so you would think that the staff at the benefits office would be aware of people who were unemployed. Their attitude though was terrible. It was as if they didn't see any reason why anyone should be unemployed and only allowed me my benefit begrudgingly as if they were paying me out of their own savings.

DWP is a dirty, dirty culture where the unemployed are looked upon as though they're criminals and deserve every bit of misery that can be bestowed upon them.

My view is that there is no shame in being unemployed when there is not full employment. The shame is when you have an ability to work, have work offered but still don't want to do it.

My son is eighteen. During last summer he did some gardening jobs to earn money rather than claim benefit. In the Autumn when the weather turned bad and there were no lawns to cut or hedges to trim he was reluctant to claim benefit. I had to point out that the reason I pay some of my tax towards it was to give people money to live on and I had to convince that it was not shameful to claim it.


Steve.

 

[big soft moose]

I
My son is eighteen. During last summer he did some gardening jobs to earn money rather than claim benefit. In the Autumn when the weather turned bad and there were no lawns to cut or hedges to trim ...

Slightly off topic, but as someone in the outdoors industry i find that suprising - usually there are lots of contractors looking for a hardworking lad for dogsbody jobs during the winter , its in the summer that work is thinner on the ground

Serveral of the contractors I use find it ridiculously difficult to fill their winter vacancies - seems that down here at least theres a shortage of hardworking lads willing to graft for about £7.hour - theres no shortage of shiftless arsewits who want to doss about and do 9/10 of **** all - but they usually last less than a day of dragging brash arround. (edit : I just want to make it clear that I am not comparing steves son to the latter - I realised it could be taken that way on rereading)

for that reason i'm not entirely convinced by the article in the OP - people may not choose to be unemployed - but some (not all) chose to behave in an unemployable manner

what the article really illustrates (as if it were in doubt) id that the guardian is just a predjudiced on these issues as the daily heil but in the oposite direction- and the truth of the matter usually falls somewhere in the middle

 

[Steve Smith]

i find that suprising - usually there are lots of contractors looking for a hardworking lad for dogsbody jobs during the winter

It probably differs region to region. There is not a lot of that sort of work down here at the moment. He worked at my company for a couple of months when we had a bit of extra work on and after working at a local garage for the school's work experience week, he went back and worked for them every Saturday morning for a couple of years without pay just for some experience.

My son now has a five year plan and is starting back at college in September to do a course which will qualify him to train as a paramedic.

I'm quite pleased with this as when I was eighteen I didn't even have a five minute plan!


Steve.

 

[big soft moose]

sound plan - even if he can't get a paramedic job (thanks to austerity there are fewer than there once were) , a paramedic qualification will also be an asset in getting a wide range of other jobs , both because of the H&S boxes it ticks , and because it demonstrates responsibility and maturity

 

[archamedes]

I'm going to be honest with you. When I was claiming job seekers. I had an xbox 360 an iphone, a computer, nintendo ds a widescreen TV and a laptop for the wife. This sickened people....

However All the above things were bought with my own money when I was working full 14 hour shifts as a van driver.

But when I was made redundent and had to seek benefits I was verbally lynched, judged and executed because apparently if I am signing on I have to fit the lifestyle that satisfies the tax payer. In that I mean I had to sell everything I worked hard for to fit the ideal image of someone signing on who had no decent possessions and sat in a scruffy unfurnished flat with a black and white tv and a nokia 3210.

So when I see the ignorant sit on their high horse and moan that people on the dole have iphones and laptops I have to put my pennies worth in because alough i fit that description at one time, all my luxuries were NOT paid for by the tax payer.

 

[big soft moose]

So when I see the ignorant sit on their high horse and moan that people on the dole have iphones and laptops I have to put my pennies worth in because alough i fit that description at one time, all my luxuries were NOT paid for by the tax payer.

on the other hand why should the tax payer pay to keep you if you have money tied up in various luxury goods you don't need and could easily sell :shrug:

Benefits should be a last resort - not an automatic choice as soon as one finds oneslf out of work.

(which has happened to me 4 times in my life - only once have i had to resort to signing on - self employment/agency work/ selling most of my expensive belongings/ and casual graft saw me through the other three - on one occasion sleeping in my van for over a month when I couldnt afford to pay rent )

 

[archamedes]

on the other hand why should the tax payer pay to keep you if you have money tied up in various luxury goods you don't need and could easily sell :shrug:

Benefits should be a last resort - not an automatic choice as soon as one finds oneslf out of work.

(which has happened to me 4 times in my life - only once have i had to resort to signing on - self employment/agency work/ selling most of my expensive belongings/ and casual graft saw me through the other three - on one occasion sleeping in my van for over a month when I couldnt afford to pay rent )

I didn't go on job seekers as a choice. I tried really hard to get a job so I didn't have to, but unfortunately I didn't have any big qualifications and any of the jobs I was used to either weren't hiring or had a table filled with application forms from people just like me. Unfortunately being made redundant doesn't automatically stop the bills and debts that needed to be paid uninterrupted. I also didn't have the choice of living in a van because I have a family. We sold a hell of a lot of things that needed to go to help, but why should we sell everything we own that we paid for with our own money just to satisfy everyone else?

 

[big soft moose]

Also (and this isnt aimed at dave specifically - we cross posted) i'd just note that a lot of the time " theres no work" roughly translates as " theres no work that pays more than i get on my collective benefits " , or at best " theres no work that a cursory browse of a few websites and a weekly visit to the job centre has found for me"

Its amazing how much work can be found when you take the attitude "I'll do anything thats legal, no matter how unpleasant or badly paid"

Crap jobs i've done in my time have included nightshift in a bakery - putting cheese on quiche for £3.25/hour (that was in prior min wage days) , on a cleaning crew in a slaughter house, shovelling noxious slime out of ditches , working on a council blitz cleaning crew ( Blitz crews handle the nastiest jobs - stuff like clearing a council back yard of 6 months worth of nappies and sanitary towels , the tenant in the upstairs flat had been throwing them out of the window rather than disposing of them propperly ) and so forth

More prosaicly ive also done any ammount of chainsaw work (and I didnt have the ticket until i went out and got it ), a fair bit of freelance photography, and numerous shifts as barman and/or security in clubs with a somewhat iffy clientelle

 

[big soft moose]

why should we sell everything we own that we paid for with our own money just to satisfy everyone else?

You don't sell them to satisfy everyone else you sell them because the bills and debts don't stop - equally why should you expect that someone else will pay for your bills and debts so that you can keep your iphone, laptop etc ?

essentially they would then have been paid for by the tax payer - because they'd have provived the money you could otherwise have realised by selling them - hence why people who are working moan about people on the dole having phones and laptops etc, regardless of how they were paid for originally

Incidentally my wife is currently working a job that takes her 180 miles away from home during the week - because it was all she could get when her current contract ended - not living together 5 out of 7 is far from ideal - but its better than claiming JSA ( which she wouldnt get anyway - because they'd say that my salary should keep us both)

 

[archamedes]

well I have had to pay for my fair share of taxes for people on the dole and i never looked down on them or told them that they had to sell everything they own to make me feel better about myself. but it doesn't matter now because I'm not on job seekers anymore and I don't judge

 

[London Headshots]

on the other hand why should the tax payer pay to keep you if you have money tied up in various luxury goods you don't need and could easily sell :shrug:

Benefits should be a last resort - not an automatic choice as soon as one finds oneslf out of work.

(which has happened to me 4 times in my life - only once have i had to resort to signing on - self employment/agency work/ selling most of my expensive belongings/ and casual graft saw me through the other three - on one occasion sleeping in my van for over a month when I couldnt afford to pay rent )

Well no, they should be an automatic choice. That's the idea of them. If archamedes found himself out of work after paying into the system, he is perfectly entitled to take from it without having to resort to selling his worldly goods.

If you're happy to be homeless rather than claim help from an agency designed to provide it, that's on you, but I don't think it's right to hold everyone else to that standard.

I've never claimed JSA before, but if I had to, I would. Without shame.