How to get people off benefits and into work in one easy step

[squidgy]

We're led to believe that there's work available if you want it. But we're also supposed to believe that there are still unemployed people - and that it's somehow their fault that they're on benefits and not working.

There's obviously something wrong with the system that matches unemployed people to job vacancies.

At the moment, we have a system of CV's, job application forms and interviews. This was fine in the past, in the days of big industry, when everyone used to work for just one of a handful of different organisations. But today's labour market is different. Nowadays, the vast majority of people work for organisations that employ less than twenty people.

What does this mean for the jobseeker? Pointless duplication of information on very similar application forms, and a demoralising string of interviews and rejections. If they still don't have a job after six months, they get blamed for not trying hard enough - and are tacitly encouraged to start bending the truth on their application forms to get round the problem.

It's not good for employers either - because it means they have to spend more money on their human resource function. They can't make bulk savings any more, which makes business less cost-effective. Oh - and they also waste money employing people who have lied on their application forms and in the interview.

I guess that most unemployed people don't give a monkeys who they end up working for - so why wait for them to apply for jobs? Why not do it the other way round - and let employers apply for workers?

So here's my idea. Scrap the application form and interview methods - and replace it with a central database of unemployed people and their skills. Whenever a business wants to hire a worker, they don't advertise or interview people - instead, they just phone up the jobcentre, who find the most appropriate worker in their database automatically. The government acts a bit like a public sector employment agency.

In the event that there are no unemployed people available with the skills or experience that the employer needs, then the state supplies someone with the best matching skills - and the employer trains the worker up at their own expense.

Everyone wins - employers actually get people with the skills they need, the state saves money on benefits, and jobseekers don't have to waste time saying the same thing over and over again at hundreds of different interviews any more.

Any thoughts?

[snoozy]

Hmmm,

Possibly the main reason that there are vacancys at the same time that there are unemployed is because many "unemployed" should be reclassified as unemployable.

But that's probably politically incorrect so I don't really think that..


snooz

[Alnath]

The unemployment figures are a joke anyway, you mean to tell me we have the biggest population this country has ever had and technology advances at a pace most cant keep up with yet unemployment is really this low?

What happened to the millions of people making cars, mining coal and making steel? Have they all died or are they packing beans at a specifically built hyper Tesco somewhere?

Load of cobblers, the figures are rigged to suit and the next government will do exactly the same.

The easiest way to cut unemployment is make the retirement age 60 or even 55 but no it costs money doesn’t it to give people a free life after they have slogged there guts out for all those years.

[P.C.Dunderhead]

I'd echo snoozy's sentiment.

Then of course,there are people who simply can't be bothered to get a job.They don't want to work,no matter how "simple" the application process becomes.Don't get me wrong,I'm not a complete Nazi.Those not wishing to work for a living and getting by on £45 a week (or whatever the rate is thesedays)state benefit,and being content with that,good luck to them.If they aren't out committing crimes to subsidise their income,then live and let live,I say.
Just because a person is not in conventional employment,it doesn't make them of less value to society.They contribute to their local communities in other ways-say,by careing for ageing relatives.
It's more a question of what can be done about the nihilistic element of society,who think the world owes them a living,bleed the system and offer nothing in return-even cause a decline in the life quality of those around them..what can we do?Shoot them?

[BexTech]

What happened to the millions of people.....

Claiming incapacity benefit, life is stressful and the mind does go!

[merlin]

In my younger days when signing on, you had to have an interview where they asked you how you were doing. They would then check the job list and see if there is anything that might suit you. I supose that this is not possible nowdays due to the high amount of people unemployed, and the time it would take up.

The new system of using a computer to find what jobs are avail, is ok in one way as you can search it from home. but I remember the old way with the cards, all the vacancies were there to be seen, and I wonder how many jobs were taken simply because the reader found a vacancy completley different to what they were looking for, and thought to themselves " Hey I can do that job" , and then applied for the position.

The new system will only let you see the jobs that meet the information that you type in., and you miss those that you could do, but are unaware that they exist.

[squidgy]

It's more a question of what can be done about the nihilistic element of society,who think the world owes them a living,bleed the system and offer nothing in return-even cause a decline in the life quality of those around them..what can we do?

Do you think they really exist? Sure, I've read about them in the Daily Mail - but I've never actually met any of them. So I'm starting to have my doubts.

The easiest way to cut unemployment is make the retirement age 60 or even 55 but no it costs money doesn’t it to give people a free life after they have slogged there guts out for all those years.

Um - er - I think there's mixed logic going on here - aren't you suggesting that these people who ought to be on pensions are actually on sick benefits instead? In that case - I can't see how it affects the unemployment figures.

Okay time to fess - Starting this thread was my "passive-aggresive" response to something kdee posted in another thread. So - hats off to you good people for taking it at face value, as though the anger wasn't there.
Maybe this just means I'm getting a bit better at disguising it.


As it happens - I don't like job interviews. Can you tell? I'm not wildly keen on doctors either - in fact, I have a hard time with anyone I don't know that well - and I don't have an easy time with people I've known for donkey's years either. I'm hoping my cognitive therapy will fix this.

[Andrew666]

instead, they just phone up the jobcentre, who find the most appropriate worker in their database automatically

Good in theory, but newly unemployed people with strong skills and a lot of experience will always jump to the top of the list and get another job straight away. People with fewer skills or less experience who may still be very employable and eager to work may never get the chance.

[P.C.Dunderhead]

[quote]Originally posted by squidgy
[b]Do you think they really exist? Sure, I've read about them in the Daily Mail - but I've never actually met any of them. So I'm starting to have my doubts.

They exist,all right.A family referred to as the "local Mafia" was terrorising the entire district.On every imaginable benefit...could blather on all night..

Had an Anti-Social Behaviour Order taken out against them,and pulled their heads in when threatened with eviction.Or was it because they didn't want to attract attention to their smuggling activities?..

HORRIBLE people.Prone to acts of indiscriminate violence and vandalism...Shouldn't think for a moment they feel any gratitude to the poor mugs working their ar*es off to keep them in luxury...

[P.C.Dunderhead]

Originally posted by squidgy

I have a hard time with anyone I don't know that well - and I don't have an easy time with people I've known for donkey's years either. I'm hoping my cognitive therapy will fix this.

yer doing fine from where I'm sitting.How wonderful it is to see someone using their mind the way you do.People are always going to be envious.If you are better than average looking,too,Heaven help you.You're in for some flack!

Rise above it,with your usual dignity and humility,squidgy.

[BexTech]

Do you think they really exist? Sure, I've read about them in the Daily Mail - but I've never actually met any of them. So I'm starting to have my doubts.

Yes they do, I have seen many in my past, and infact one of my cousins was one!

I've seen people obtain grants every six months, saying they need new beds, cooker, fridges, clothes for the kids as they have grown out of the current ones.

Infact a previous partner was always doing it, worked only once when 17 for a few weeks, and since been on benefits, she can afford good clothes, smokes etc, now has four children, she doesn't want to work - it doesn't pay!

Now my cousin and his girlfriend were the same, have two kids, a housing association house - They said what's the point of working? - No need to pay rent or council tax and all the time is theres! They would have been worse off if they worked!

Until middle of last year, they had the benefit reduced, and told take a job or it will be further reduced! They both now work and have the child care cost's paid - so that worked for them! And now the tax credits are in they are better off working!

The saying was the only people who can afford a housing association home, is those on benefits!

It's crazy the government won't give money to councils to build homes, yet they will to housing associations etc. yet a housing association home costs over £75 per week to rent and a council home from just over £35 per week (Birmingham)!

[kdee]

Originally posted by P.C.Dunderhead
yer doing fine from where I'm sitting.How wonderful it is to see someone using their mind the way you do.People are always going to be envious.If you are better than average looking,too,Heaven help you.You're in for some flack!

Rise above it,with your usual dignity and humility,squidgy.

ROLMFAO

[squidgy]

People with fewer skills or less experience who may still be very employable and eager to work may never get the chance.

So the government trains them.

I agree that long term unemployment is a problem. But with the existing system, you never know whether it's the unemployed man's fault - or if it's because he lacks skills and experience. With my system, the possibility of it being the unemployed man's fault is removed. The government therefore becomes much more active about providing skills and education.

They exist,all right.A family referred to as the "local Mafia" was terrorising the entire district.On every imaginable benefit...could blather on all night..

That's the thing - the details of your benefit awards are covered by the same Data Protection Act that covers the your personal tax records, and the balances of your bank accounts, savings accounts and credit cards.

You can say that someone is on every imaginable benefit - in the same way that you can say someone has a million pounds in every imaginable savings account. But there's no way of actually knowing - because the banks and local authorities aren't allowed to tell you yay or nay. Unless you happen to be an HM Customs and Excise officer.

So when you read about it in the press - I advise you to take it with a pinch of salt.

Also ...

HORRIBLE people.Prone to acts of indiscriminate violence and vandalism...Shouldn't think for a moment they feel any gratitude to the poor mugs working their ar*es off to keep them in luxury...

Do you honestly think it would solve any problems if they did feel gratitude? Personally, I doubt it. And besides, I can't see how you can force someone to be grateful. And even if you could, I'm not aware of any objective way of measuring gratitude. So how can you tell whether it's worked or not?

They said what's the point of working? - No need to pay rent or council tax and all the time is theres! They would have been worse off if they worked!

I prefer to think that's a problem with the way the system works - not the people who find themselves in that situation.

If you thought you would be evicted if you got a job - then you wouldn't be very keen on working either.

Our government seems to believe in a "tax-benefit" model, whereby reduction in entitlement to benefits and liability for tax are seen in much the same way. Everyone gets given enough resources to feed themselves and their children - but at the same time, you're always better off earning than not - your increase in tax liability for any given increase in earnings should never be more than 100% - and preferably, a lot less if possible.

Now that's fine in theory - but where it all falls apart is the sloppy administration of housing benefit by local authorities. LA's reclaim the actual housing benefit cash from the DWP - but they have to meet the costs of administering the system from their own funds - and they're also under political pressure to keep council tax as low as possible.

It's obviously simpler to administer the housing benefit claim of an unemployed person than the claim of a working person. As a result, working people get a raw deal. Rightly or wrongly, they're convinced that they're not getting everything they're entitled to - but they're never able to check, because the LA never answers the phone. Result? Fear of eviction.

Working people (such as your good selves) are narked off about it - and unemployed people don't want to work for exactly the same reasons.

Following on from this ...

It's crazy the government won't give money to councils to build homes, yet they will to housing associations etc. yet a housing association home costs over £75 per week to rent and a council home from just over £35 per week (Birmingham)!

I partly agree - but the thing is, if the housing benefit system actually worked like it's supposed to, then there wouldn't be any need for council or housing association accommodation. The government seems to believe that subsidising the private sector is better than trying to provide municipal housing.

I've never been in municipal housing, I've only ever lived in the private sector - so I can't compare. Sure, I moan from time to time - but I don't think it's that bad. I just wish that the state would be a bit more straight with me. I guess the rest of you feel the same.

Thanks for replies, food for thought - we'll put the world to rights!

[squidgy]

It's crazy the government won't give money to councils to build homes, yet they will to housing associations etc. yet a housing association home costs over £75 per week to rent and a council home from just over £35 per week (Birmingham)!

Here's what you're overlooking. Just because there are a few council tenants in Birmingham who pay £35 per week doesn't mean that the city council can provide more than that.

Council tenancies aren't just available to anyone - there are a few eligibility criteria you have to satisfy before you can move in. So council rent doesn't follow the same supply and demand that controls the private sector.

But the private sector can't provide accommodation for less than £75 per week. Why not? Because if the rent was any less than that, it wouldn't cover the landlord's mortgage interest. Why is that? Because property prices are so high these days.

If the council wanted to build more houses, they would have to buy land to build them on first. And they would have to buy this land from the same property market that private developers are operating in. They would therefore have to pay the same mortgage interest as a private developer - and therefore charge the same rent. There's absolutely no way that the council are going to build more houses if they're not able to charge more than £35 per week to let them - unless they get massive subsidies for doing it.

[BexTech]

The thing is the council already own the land, but they are not allowed to knock down crumbling houses and rebuild them!

If they do get knocked down they must then sell that to a housing assosiation who will then build!

People in Birmingham does not want the council to sell the homes off like other councils have, for the fact they have seen how the rent doubles in price, and the repair service they offer is much worse than the councils!

Now if Birmingham tries to put right ALL the problems with some of the houses, it is more exspensive than if they could re-build!

Now why don't the government do like before and give them a 30 year interst free (or very low interest) loan?

[squidgy]

The thing is the council already own the land, but they are not allowed to knock down crumbling houses and rebuild them!

Ah ...
really?

I'm beginning to take your point.

But then I'm thinking - local authorities do have a responsibility to house people - or so the squatter's rights advocators keep telling us. And I think it's better for people to live in a safe private sector house than a council house that's likely to collapse on them in their sleep.

I'm as much in favour of municipal housing as anyone. But I don't see how hoarding unlettable stock helps anyone - nor how it reduces rent, either in the municipal or the private sector.

Unless they up council tax. Or get central subsidies of some sort. But that's what you're saying already. Point is - I don't think it's Birmingham's fault. It's going to need central government action to put this right.

And there's no guarantee that central government will see the point. They're weighing up Birmingham against other locations. They'll be thinking "Shall we improve housing in Birmingham? Or is it more feasable to encourage people to move somewhere else instead?"

[P.C.Dunderhead]

Originally posted by squidgy

That's the thing - the details of your benefit awards are covered by the same Data Protection Act that covers the your personal tax records, and the balances of your bank accounts, savings accounts and credit cards.

You can say that someone is on every imaginable benefit - in the same way that you can say someone has a million pounds in every imaginable savings account. But there's no way of actually knowing - because the banks and local authorities aren't allowed to tell you yay or nay. Unless you happen to be an HM Customs and Excise officer.

So when you read about it in the press - I advise you to take it with a pinch of salt.

I don't read the press,Sweetie.I KNOW about this because the characters concerned make no secret of it.They openly brag about it.Flashing wads of money about,too,as if they feel superior or of greater intellect than "losers" that work for a living!
It's strangely ironic,don't you think?Now,if you are smart and cunning you can "work" the system.
If you're sad enough to get an awful job you are frustrated with,just as a matter of pride or princple-more fool you.

I dunno,squidgy,it's all so topsy-turvey theses days.I have utter faith in you to get it sorted,tho'.
Can't think why you don't run for local election.Then start floating White Papers through parliament...

[squidgy]

Can't think why you don't run for local election.

By 'eck there's a good idea - never thought of that. So I've started reading up about the process - somehow, I need to find out when my next "nomination day" is going to be.

Unfortunately, it looks like you can't run for local election without people knowing who you are. Damn - otherwise ....

One of my relatives is a Labour district councillor.

[P.C.Dunderhead]

Well,become the worlds first "virtual Candidate".Sort of like Max Headroom,only with anarchy-sign tattoos.

I'd estimate,citizens would "know" the virtual you about as well as they "knew" B-Liar...

[BexTech]

Or get central subsidies of some sort

The government WILL and do give subsidies if the council housing transfers / sells all the homes to housing assosiations!

But people in Birmingham do not want homes sold from the council to housing assosiations.

They were trying to split them up to 5 or 6 assosiations.

If that happens the rent has to increase, will increase, they even said so, also as the number of homes each assosiation is reduced the cost of repairs will go up as then they can not get the reductions on cost through scale of homes.

A bit like buying in bulk!

The money is there the government has prommised it, but only if the council houses are sold off! That is wrong council houses are needed, most are in very good condition thats why coucil tenants buy them.

There are some though that were not built correctly by the builders and needs replacing, but why should someone be forced out of there home to have it replaced by one where the rent is over twice the cost? And why should the council not be allowed to build new homes to replace the ones sold?

If you can not afford to buy a home, the council housing is your first option you should be looking at, then housing assosiation, and lastly and one to avoid if at all possible is private renting!

Councils provide homes for all, from families, couples and single people, in Birmingham you do not have to waits years, or even months to get housed.