Purnell: more attacks on the unemployed, etc

[treelover]

As i said in my other hardly read post, the offensive on the poor has hardly begun, now Purnell is warning those on benefits, they must upskill or face benefit cuts. This will also apply to disabled people. This is happening now all over the world and it is clear it is part of the neo-liberal agenda.In fact in canada, they are launching a new Welfare Reform Act and that the name of the new benefit is, yes, the Employment Support Allowance.

http://www.hi-mag.com/healthinsurance/article.do?articleid=20000115422&adname=his_breaking_news


Purnell skills warning to jobless

8 hours ago

Jobless people with gaps in skills like reading, writing and computer literacy will face cuts in their benefits if they turn down training courses, ministers said.

With 678,000 vacancies in the economy, Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell will argue that there is a job for everyone who wants one, and it is the responsibility of the unemployed to ensure they have the skills they need to secure work.

And he will signal his intention to extend compulsory training to lone parents and people on Incapacity Benefit (IB) who are deemed fit to work.

As part of the Government's drive to put skills at the heart of the welfare system, Skills Secretary John Denham will also announce that all 18-year-olds without A-levels are to be offered entitlements to £7,000 worth of training to that standard.

The measures will come in a joint command paper from the Department for Work and Pensions and Mr Denham's Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills ahead of this summer's Welfare Reform Green Paper.

At present, there is no obligation on Jobseekers Allowance (JSA) claimants to seek skills training.

http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gEzvLkJyQBpqV9DK7ntw1niz3x2w[/QUOTE]

 

[_angel_]

You can't argue with teaching people who can't read to read, but I do wonder if they're going to send everyone on insulting 'courses' in how to look for a job whether or not they need them.

All the training schemes in the world won't magic up a job where there isn't one, esp if it's got to fit around school term hours and fluctuating health conditions.

 

[tbaldwin]

You can't argue with teaching people who can't read to read, but I do wonder if they're going to send everyone on insulting 'courses' in how to look for a job whether or not they need them.

All the training schemes in the world won't magic up a job where there isn't one, esp if it's got to fit around school term hours and fluctuating health conditions.

True enough. But what is the answer to huge levels of unemployment and underemployment? I really dont think its enough to defend the rights of people who dont want to work for shit wages..I think there has to be a recognition that long term unemployment is a really bad thing.As ive said countless times before the vast majority of people on IB etc could work and would work with the right support and encouragement.

 

[Udo Erasmus]

It's disappointing that the trade union movement does little to campaign for unemployed workers.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Training courses do 'magic up' jobs. Somebody has to be paid to do the training. And presumably in their turn the trainers have to at some stage be trained by other trainers. It is mostly a way of massaging the unemployment figures though. Everyone on a training scheme ceases to be 'unemployed' while being trained.

I know someone who works in the Access To Work field. They can provide resources and equipment - usually computers to people with disabilities to enable those people to work. Quite often these resources cost more per year than the salary paid by their employer. The employer doesn't mind as the money comes from the government. It is good for the morale of the disabled person and gets them into the world of work though.

Sadly the whole Access To Work scheme is being privatised and I think that Reed Employment or whatever they are called will be taking it over. I presume that the funding will still come from the government but Reeds will take a cut from it. Staffing has already been reduced of course and there will be more people on the unemployment register as a result.

 

[ViolentPanda]

True enough. But what is the answer to huge levels of unemployment and underemployment? I really dont think its enough to defend the rights of people who dont want to work for shit wages..I think there has to be a recognition that long term unemployment is a really bad thing.As ive said countless times before the vast majority of people on IB etc could work and would work with the right support and encouragement.

We both know that there'll never be money to give the appropriate level of support, because it's all channeled toward the private sector and their short-term training programmes, the stuff that gets people off the statistics for three or six months. Good old-fashioned "churning" as patented by Thatcher's bods in the early to mid-eighties.

 

[_angel_]

We both know that there'll never be money to give the appropriate level of support, because it's all channeled toward the private sector and their short-term training programmes, the stuff that gets people off the statistics for three or six months. Good old-fashioned "churning" as patented by Thatcher's bods in the early to mid-eighties.

I know. If they really wanted to get people on benefits for disability into work they'd have to fund placements to suit the needs of the workers. This would cost money so they'd rather bash square pegs into round holes or leave them to starve.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

We both know that there'll never be money to give the appropriate level of support, because it's all channeled toward the private sector and their short-term training programmes, the stuff that gets people off the statistics for three or six months. Good old-fashioned "churning" as patented by Thatcher's bods in the early to mid-eighties.

Spot on I have nothing against effective back to work plans and projects but the private sector is just pocketing the money, harrassing claimants and giving a piss poor service.

 

[Frostys Lodger]

I wonder how long it will be before Purnell decides that pre 65 retirees on Pension Credit should be reassessed for employment and training.

 

[tbaldwin]

We both know that there'll never be money to give the appropriate level of support, because it's all channeled toward the private sector and their short-term training programmes, the stuff that gets people off the statistics for three or six months. Good old-fashioned "churning" as patented by Thatcher's bods in the early to mid-eighties.

We both may think it unlikely but i dont think we both know..I mean you might but im definitely not definite.
The private sector is only part of the problem i think you know i have the odd criticism of the public and voluntary sector parasites as well.
I dont think that having 8 million people unemployed or underemployed is a good thing for the UK.
I think that most New Labourites would agree with me on that. But they are not too sure of what could be done.
I think that critics of new labour on welfare reform should get their heads together to say what they DO WANT not just what their against.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Treelover, Canada Life is selling private insurance through UK employers for their staff that would top up ESA to up to 90% of salary. This is not a new thing - the company is just updating its product to mesh with ESA.

On the substantive story, there is of course basic literacy skills provision in place already. Millions of adults can't read or write and can't count. It's a damning indictment of the quality of schools education. But you need to be able to read and write and count to get along in almost all jobs that come up these days, and I think it is absolutely right to say to working-age people claiming benefits that if they want to continue getting them they need to address their lack of basic skills so when they do move towards working to support themselves and their families, they dont face that barrier.

Why would anyone who can't read and write and count want to continue not being able to read and write and count? "Nah, mate - reading and writing - that's not my scene, man!"

You should be in favour of this - lots more people could read the stuff you write opposing moves like this.

 

[Hoxtontwat]

Dont Panic

There is already a sysytem of "sanctions" (i.E: benefit freezes) attached to failing to follow a job seekrs direction- which could be a direction to take up training. So this announcment is nothing new.

I expect that if it does make it into the JSA Regs then it will be implimented as haphazardly as the current "sanctions" system.

Front line staff have loads of these schemes and punishments to choose from already but I don't see a concerted attempt to bully large numbers of people into schemes or into work. (I'm not saying people do n't get pushed into doing this stuff just that it happens less than the full extent allowed by the regulations)

The reason for this is that such projects require the organised, coordinated practice of workers on the ground. There is less will to do this than there is for making political capital out of appearing to tweek the benefits system.

I expect, if its even implimented, that the effect of this will be to add a few more pages regulation which will be largely ignored by overworked/can't be arsed benefits staff following their own office culture and practices.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I think it is absolutely right

Whenever I come across this phrase, I know that the course of action it supports will be absolutely wrong.

 

[treelover]

Ah, but it is different this time, it will be private companies who are largely going to be paid by results who are involved.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Whenever I come across this phrase, I know that the course of action it supports will be absolutely wrong.

Go on then, please share with us why you think it is absolutely wrong to make receipt of benefit for working age people who aren't working conditional on their taking time to develop basic skills where they don't have them, in things like reading, writing, and counting. I would add to that fluency in English language, by the way.

 

[The Black Hand]

Years ago I asked to do a web design course, something very useful - they said they wouldn't let me.

I then asked to do an advanced driving course to help get specialist employment as a driver - they wouldn't let me.

What does that tell us about their agendas?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Go on then, please share with us

Nope: I'm not going to bandy rhetoric with people who do wrong, who know why it's wrong but support it anyway.

I will however ask why, if this is such a great idea, they didn't do it ten years ago. I'll tell you the answer, too: it's because these people don't make policy. They merely launch initiatives, one after the other, just to let everybody know they're kicking the right people, the unpopular people, without actually doing anything. It's all this loathsome government ever does.

 

[audiotech]

Nope: I'm not going to bandy rhetoric with people who do wrong, who know why it's wrong but support it anyway.

I will however ask why, if this is such a great idea, they didn't do it ten years ago. I'll tell you the answer, too: it's because these people don't make policy. They merely launch initiatives, one after the other, just to let everybody know they're kicking the right people, the unpopular people, without actually doing anything. It's all this loathsome government ever does.

Yep, single mothers were the first target as they entred office in 1997, quickly followed by the disabled.

 

[Fullyplumped]

Nope: I'm not going to bandy rhetoric with people who do wrong, who know why it's wrong but support it anyway.

Maybe you're right. There is something totally indefensible - un-British, even - about imposing literacy and numeracy upon the unwilling and idle. It's all wrong, so it is.




"bandy rhetoric"

 

[Donna Ferentes]

the unwilling and idle.

And there you have it. That's what these people think.

 

[Fullyplumped]

And there you have it. That's what these people think.

Subtle irony is lost on you, I fear.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It's only irony if it's not actually an accurate representation of what you think.

 

[Fullyplumped]

I'll get back to you about what I think after the Thatcher thing finishes on telly.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Fortunately, I will have gone to bed by then as my tolerance for Thatcherism expired some time before 1979.

 

[Fullyplumped]

I'm back. I think that a society should provide for people unable to help themselves, and we do so through a package of welfare, support, education and training, and treatment. I think that the rest of us who don't need that support, at least for the present, have a responsibility to fund those services by paying tax and NI, etc, and that the better off should pay more. But I also think that people who receive these services have a responsibility to make the best use of the services and support on offer to overcome the barriers that get in the way of becoming a contributor and not a recipient.

I certainly think that where those barriers are a lack of basic skills, they should use the free time they have to acquire those skills. That is what I meant - I thought humorously, and ironically given the po-faced attitudes of many who post here - but when I made my remark about "imposing literacy and numeracy upon the unwilling and idle" I should have known that humour doesn't go down well here. Grumpy sods.

Now I think I have described a mutual society where solidarity is the basic virtue. But solidarity requires all of us to contribute to the extent we can. It was interesting watching the Thatcher programme. It was a comedy, really, and it put her in a good light, but it reminded me of a society based on selfishness, not solidarity. I am happy to see welfare based on mutuality, where as far as possible we expect people who receive benefits to do all they can to reduce their dependency and develop themselves.

 

[chainsaw cat]

I wonder how long it will be before Purnell decides that pre 65 retirees on Pension Credit should be reassessed for employment and training.

Good idea.

Bloody baby boomers living it up when we have to work to 74 to pay for them and their beige jackets and slacks.

 

[Urbanblues]

True enough. But what is the answer to huge levels of unemployment and underemployment? I really dont think its enough to defend the rights of people who dont want to work for shit wages..I think there has to be a recognition that long term unemployment is a really bad thing.As ive said countless times before the vast majority of people on IB etc could work and would work with the right support and encouragement.

Ok, find me an employer that will accept me only attending work on the days my condition permits; or, rolling in 4 or 5 hours late, unable to give notice; show me the boss that will tolerate me falling asleep during work hours, because chronic pain has kept me awake for two days; me having to use the toilet every 40 minutes or so; point me in the direction of a job that will support me financially for maybe 8 to 12 hours per week – in a good week.

I’ll be around; just PM me when you discover such a position.

 

[treelover]

what a lot of sophistry, what you are basically describing is a return to the undeserving poor, people are very complex beings and to assume they are all trying to avoid work , up skilling, etc is lazy thinking and also disingenuous.


these reforms are happening all around the world and i dont believe for one second the different govts have found a new belief in mutuality, leaving aside what mutuality actually means, it is all part of a neo-liberal agenda.

Now I think I have described a mutual society where solidarity is the basic virtue. But solidarity requires all of us to contribute to the extent we can. It was interesting watching the Thatcher programme. It was a comedy, really, and it put her in a good light, but it reminded me of a society based on selfishness, not solidarity. I am happy to see welfare based on mutuality, where as far as possible we expect people who receive benefits to do all they can to reduce their dependency and develop themselves.

 

[Urbanblues]

I know someone who works in the Access To Work field. They can provide resources and equipment - usually computers to people with disabilities to enable those people to work. Quite often these resources cost more per year than the salary paid by their employer. The employer doesn't mind as the money comes from the government. It is good for the morale of the disabled person and gets them into the world of work though.

Sadly the whole Access To Work scheme is being privatised and I think that Reed Employment or whatever they are called will be taking it over. I presume that the funding will still come from the government but Reeds will take a cut from it. Staffing has already been reduced of course and there will be more people on the unemployment register as a result.

Access to Work provides employment support for disabled workers. Not sure it’s right to say it’s “...usually computers to people with disabilities to enable those people to work.” That’s misleading and not altogether correct.

For instance, I’m a disabled wheelchair user; and, if I got a job tomorrow as a computer operator, the equipment would not be supplied by AtoW funding. AtoW will only fund for equipment to facilitate the disabled person in the job. Because I can use a standard computer and keyboard and mouse, I’d not get funding for this equipment. However, if I needed voice recognition equipment; then, that could be funded. So, I don’t drive; and, because I need to pee so frequently; it would be reasonable for me to travel to work by taxi. AtoW would fund this. Thus, the taxi fares come to £100 per week; my tube or bus fares would have been £22 per week; AtoW funds gives me £78 per week.

Where did you find out AtoW was being privatised? The government is, or has, taken it away from some large government departments; the plan is roll this out across the whole of the public sector. In my opinion, this is the prelude to scrapping the whole system.

The fact that for every £1 million spent on AtoW, the government claws back £1.7 million. You’d think that, rather than keep AtoW a secret; rather than abolishing it piece meal; that the government would plough more millions into the scheme.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

I've certainly heard what i took to be genuine commitments from James Purnell re: A2W. He was blunt that spending is limited to ~£200million but i haven't heard anything about privatisation as such. Although much welfare reform certainly appears to be going in that direction. Apparently the Treasury still aren't convinced on the spend £1 and make £1.50 argument, thus they won't release funds. So that is where attention should be concentrated imo.