existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Fair point. I was picking up on the "bad apples" term that had been used earlier, but I can see how it could have made it look as if that was what I was arguing towards.
campaign against welfare cuts and poverty
- Thread starter Blagsta
- Start date
What on earth are you going on about?
I am sure that most people here know that we have an annual budget, of which Welfare spending is part. It is quite obvious that if we spend some of this budget on those not genuinely in need, then we will have less to spend on those who really need help.
You're entitled to make stuff up and enjoy your own fantasies, but the 815 reviews from people who actually know what they're talking about, ie, ex employees and current employees of DWP, wouldn't have given the DWP 4 out of 5 stars if they found the DWP to be a "toxic work environment".
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
And you believe the sample to be representative because... ?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Yes, dear,
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
It is really very simple. people who have wrongly (either fraudulently or incorrectly) claimed a benefit has never at any time resulted in anyone who you see, as genuinely in need of help, from claiming or receiving any benefit. It really is that simple. In fact, whilst there has always been a notional cap on welfare spending, it was only a couple of years ago that then Chancellor, Gideon Osborne, actually put an actual verifiable cap on welfare spending.
And you believe a sample of 815 reviews is NOT representative because.....?
Er, perhaps because the vast majority of them do not agree with you?
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Ever heard of a thing called "selection bias"?
The sample of views you're offering is entirely self-selected. Do I need to spell it out for you, or can you fill in the gaps yourself?
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
You might be stupid enough to use a tactic like that (or, for that matter, combing Google for something to prop up your claims), but most halfway intelligent people are going to know it's transparently obvious what's going on. And anyway, you've gone off on a bit of a sidetrack here, unless the main thrust of your argument is now that a contented DWP workforce somehow means that benefits claimants are not routinely and systematically being fucked over by the system.
Those who contributed were not selected, sunshine. You really should think before you post.
They must be evil then. You not got anything better to do than talk bollocks about those in need?
You were the one making claims i.e. that the employees of the DWP operated in a "toxic work environment".
I merely pointed out that the 815 reviews of the DWP by DWP employees proved that you were talking complete shite.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Haha. Now actually GOOGLE "selection bias", you plum.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Except it proves nothing. Thanks for playing.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Firk off.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Yes they were. The kind of people who bother to go to a website and leave a review select themselves. Unless you're arguing that everyone who recently worked for the DWP left a review on that site.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That'd mean 50,000-plus reviews, not less than a thousand, so if that's what "Happy Larry" was saying, it points up a surprising lack of employee participation.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
And it's worth pondering on whether satisfied employees are more or less likely to post on such a survey than those who are unhappy. Particularly given that civil servants are usually subject to quite draconian policies about criticising their employers, and given that DWP have something of a reputation as a somewhat oppressive employer.
People read far too much into surveys - there's a reason why outfits like MORI and IPSOS have complex processes to conduct the surveys they do, and it's about a lot more than inviting people to voluntarily offer their views - even if they randomly select people to survey, they have to take account of those who refuse to participate, in case the motive for the refusal might be statistically significant in terms of what's being surveyed for.
Not that we would expect the amoebic intellect of people like Flappy Harry to begin to comprehend any of that...
And people like yourself obviously find it very, very hard to swallow when the employees of the DWP themselves make nonsense of your silly claim that they work in a "toxic environment". The DWP has many hardworking and dedicated employees who don't deserve being criticised by whinging sour faces like yourself who actually have no idea at all what it is like to work there.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
I think I cover that point quite adequately in the remainder of the sentence you chose not to quote.
But we're going in circles. Ones which will almost certainly continue until your inevitable ban for trolling, or until I can't be bothered...oh! That moment has been reached.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
As usual, you couldn't be more wrong Panda. I have worked for myself since the age of 25.
We differ in that I don't believe a group of government employees should be insulted, as they have been here, just because the government that they work for doesn't hand money out right left and centre to anyone who wants some, but rather tries its best to ensure that assistance only goes to those in our population who are genuinely in need.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
You mean that *some* DWP employees have left some arse-licking reviews on some website, and that you're under the misapprehension that it somehow supports whatever asinine point you're making.
Actually 815 reviews, sunshine. Not merely "some".
They certainly "support" the fact that there are many DWP employees who do not feel that they are working in a "toxic environment" and is certainly more credible reasoning than that of those who merely feel that the DWP does not do enough for them.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
815 out of however many thousands that the DWP employs, or has employed in the recent past, is not all that many, no matter how desperately you try to spin it.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
So. You shat all over the memorial thread for people affected by DWP, by banging on about policy, and now you're shitting all over a thread about benefits policy by banging on about staff satisfaction in the DWP.
You're either as thick as shit for believing the nonsense you're vomiting all over the boards, or you're just out to troll.
Your call.
existentialist
Tired and unemotional
Whatever it is, it's not representative. But I don't think such trivialities concern twathead here.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Thanks for that, layabout.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
As I stated earlier, the DWP employs over 50,000 people. For only 815 - less than 2% - of them to have participated, is the kind of response rate most surveyors would be DEEPLY unsatisfied by, given that the average return rate for employee surveys is around 20%.
Similar threads
- Poll
