Bureaucracy

[slah]

Originally posted by waghorn41

Originally posted by slah
Well I have to say I think that this all kinda seems fair....

1: Why should you be on state help if you have the means of supporting yourself?
2: Why should you receive wellfare for being unemployed if you´re not available for work?
3: Why should the state accept that when you have money you spend it on things you didnt even have when you were employed?

I make a living sitting in a complaint board where we deal with these very cases (and may be biased because of that), and I have to say that if you have enough money to live for 6 months, while buying a new car (new in the meaning that you didn´t have one before), and not being able to work because you´re ecucating yourself I would be seriously pissed off if you were able to receive that kind of financial help from the state.

I´m not denying there is a bit of red tape, but that can´t be avoided in any system. It´s needed to ensure that every case gets treated the same way, so that noone gets special treatment, and so that noone gets a bad treatment - everybody gets the same.

1. I had to sign on for future purposes, believe me I didn\'t want to. Not after handouts.
2. They said effectively that if I signed on I had to be available EVERY day, notwithstanding that in the process of applying for jobs, waiting for interviews I would have days when I was \'free\' and could have done the courses. They were not interested in helping me find a job after all.
3. I needed a car to be able to get to interviews and possibly commute to work as public transport was/is so dire. Consider trying to get to an interview or a job maybe 50 miles away - could you walk/cycle it every day and be fit to do a days work?

You\'d be pissed off? How do you think I felt at the state telling me I had to sign on but couldn\'t then use my resources to get back into work? That\'s not red tape it\'s a red noose.

1 - I´m not sure I understand what you mean about signing on for future purposes - I think I´m loosing something in translation could you expand your point for us who are a bit thick

2: Of course you have to be available EVERY single day - think of it´s like a job. You are effectively being paid by the state as being available for work should a job turn up.

I can´t speak for the law in England, but in Denmark the law says that if you have 100.00 kr, and you would be entitled to 10.000 kr a month, then you won´t be eligible for support until you have spent the 100.00 kr. Also because you would be entitled to 10.000 kr. a month you can´t just blow your money in a month, but have to wait 10 months because if you were supported by the state you would have to live on 10.000 kr. a month. HOWEVER ( - in Denmark at least ) the state doesn´t care what you do in those 10 months because the state doesn´t pay you. You are not at that time \"employed\" as jobseeking in that period. IF in fact you have to be available every day AND NOT get any support then we can agree that´s unfair - and illogical.

3: use public transportation to go to jobinterviews and get a car once you get a job and need daily transportation. Your ability to use your own car to go to the odd jobinterview and the potential need - when you GET a job - to get to and from work is a luxury which the state ( and the taxpayers) shouldn´t have to pay for. You choose to get a car - you pay for it.

 

[No Such Agency]

Originally posted by slah
2: Of course you have to be available EVERY single day - think of it´s like a job. You are effectively being paid by the state as being available for work should a job turn up.

His point, of course, is that he was thinking of the big picture of job searching: \"upgrade my skills so that I can get a better job in the future\", while they were stuck in \"no you must be sitting around waiting, in case someone needs you to dig ditches for minimum wage\". \"The state\" has an interest in an employed, educated citizenry, after all. They\'re just not always very good at helping out, which is the point of this thread.

 

[slah]

Originally posted by No Such Agency

Originally posted by slah
2: Of course you have to be available EVERY single day - think of it´s like a job. You are effectively being paid by the state as being available for work should a job turn up.

His point, of course, is that he was thinking of the big picture of job searching: \"upgrade my skills so that I can get a better job in the future\", while they were stuck in \"no you must be sitting around waiting, in case someone needs you to dig ditches for minimum wage\". \"The state\" has an interest in an employed, educated citizenry, after all. They\'re just not always very good at helping out, which is the point of this thread.

in an ideal society that would be ideal - the problem is that for every person who genuinely wants to get a new job, works hard at it and acquires new skills, there are 2 people who are the exact opposite, and don´t want to work (these statistics are offcourse pulled out my ass - this is the internet after all - but I´m sure you get my point).

At the same time the state does not have the ressources (and the general public - voters - dont have the interest) to have enough caseworkers that makes it possible to fully differentiate between the two groups. Also it would present some legal problems if some jobseekers had preferential treatment.

So basically the state has to crack down hard on jobseekers in order to motivate the entire group to go out and get jobs. The rules are not arbitrarily made just to annoy people. they are made with 2 - somewhat opposite - purposes in mind.
1: securing the income of those who truly have a hard time getting a job, and
2: \"motivating\" those people who are lazy and just want to sit on their asses all day.

And the point of this thread was anger towards bureaucracy and I disagree completely. Be angry with bad caseworking, stupid rules and excessive bureacracy. But without bureacracy noone would have any of the security we have today, and would instead be situated in local fiefdoms paying tithes to our lords and letting them have \"Prima Nocte\".

 

[Amazon warrior]

Originally posted by slah

Originally posted by No Such Agency

Originally posted by slah
2: Of course you have to be available EVERY single day - think of it´s like a job. You are effectively being paid by the state as being available for work should a job turn up.

His point, of course, is that he was thinking of the big picture of job searching: \"upgrade my skills so that I can get a better job in the future\", while they were stuck in \"no you must be sitting around waiting, in case someone needs you to dig ditches for minimum wage\". \"The state\" has an interest in an employed, educated citizenry, after all. They\'re just not always very good at helping out, which is the point of this thread.

in an ideal society that would be ideal - the problem is that for every person who genuinely wants to get a new job, works hard at it and acquires new skills, there are 2 people who are the exact opposite, and don´t want to work (these statistics are offcourse pulled out my ass - this is the internet after all - but I´m sure you get my point).

At the same time the state does not have the ressources (and the general public - voters - dont have the interest) to have enough caseworkers that makes it possible to fully differentiate between the two groups. Also it would present some legal problems if some jobseekers had preferential treatment.

...or they could have a system whereby the jobseeker demonstrates the usefulness of any desired courses (i.e., how it\'ll help them get a job and get off benefits) and has to produce documents proving that they\'ve signed up, attended and passed. It wouldn\'t be that hard to do this under the current system, and anyone who really wants to could. It would be too much like hard work for \"lazy\" people

Re the \"new\" car: I don\'t know how many people know this (because I don\'t know how well publicised it is, but my bf is using it currently while he job-hunts), but the JC will pay travel expenses to and from job interviews. HOWEVER, this assumes that the interview is reachable by public transport, which is not always the case, especially in the UK where we have the worst public transport system in Europe (or one of the worst, anyway). As for only attending job interviews that can only be reached by public transport, ever heard of going where the work is? There might not be any suitable jobs locally for someone with a particular skill set. Hell, if I\'d done that, I\'d be working in Tesco\'s in Cardigan (or something equally low-paid). With a Master\'s degree in Chemistry. (And I would definitely need a car for that! Nearest bus stop to my home in Wales - three miles away. Frequency of buses - one an hour if you\'re lucky.) No thanks.

 

[Mosch]

Orginal gepostet von slah
they told you, that under a given set of circumstances you will be able to receive a certain amount in support, but because they don´t have a signed contract they can´t verify that the circumstances are met, and because of that they can´t promise you a certain amount.

So you\'re saying that it makes perfect sense for somebody to first sign a contract to buy a house, claiming they have the money, and then look for a bank to get a loan?

I don\'t know, that\'s a lot to ask - potentially risking homelessness and a big financial loss to find out if the government would pay your home in that case is pretty gutsy.

 

[slah]

Originally posted by Amazon warrior

Originally posted by slah

Originally posted by No Such Agency

Originally posted by slah
2: Of course you have to be available EVERY single day - think of it´s like a job. You are effectively being paid by the state as being available for work should a job turn up.

His point, of course, is that he was thinking of the big picture of job searching: \"upgrade my skills so that I can get a better job in the future\", while they were stuck in \"no you must be sitting around waiting, in case someone needs you to dig ditches for minimum wage\". \"The state\" has an interest in an employed, educated citizenry, after all. They\'re just not always very good at helping out, which is the point of this thread.

in an ideal society that would be ideal - the problem is that for every person who genuinely wants to get a new job, works hard at it and acquires new skills, there are 2 people who are the exact opposite, and don´t want to work (these statistics are offcourse pulled out my ass - this is the internet after all - but I´m sure you get my point).

At the same time the state does not have the ressources (and the general public - voters - dont have the interest) to have enough caseworkers that makes it possible to fully differentiate between the two groups. Also it would present some legal problems if some jobseekers had preferential treatment.

...or they could have a system whereby the jobseeker demonstrates the usefulness of any desired courses (i.e., how it\'ll help them get a job and get off benefits) and has to produce documents proving that they\'ve signed up, attended and passed. It wouldn\'t be that hard to do this under the current system, and anyone who really wants to could. It would be too much like hard work for \"lazy\" people

True, and should/is an option in some cases where the person have more problems than just being unemplyed - like social ineptitude/problems few ressources (I don´t mean financial resources) and other cases like that. If your only problme is that you are unemployed, then the state shouldn´t pay. If your problme is a lack of schooling/education the get your ass back to school like the rest of the people who are educating themselves. Why should the state pay for further schooling just because someone got shitcanned from the job they started in when they wanted money instead of going to school!? Where´s the fairness in that compared to the rest \"us\" who stayed in school?

Re the \"new\" car: I don\'t know how many people know this (because I don\'t know how well publicised it is, but my bf is using it currently while he job-hunts), but the JC will pay travel expenses to and from job interviews. HOWEVER, this assumes that the interview is reachable by public transport, which is not always the case, especially in the UK where we have the worst public transport system in Europe (or one of the worst, anyway). As for only attending job interviews that can only be reached by public transport, ever heard of going where the work is? There might not be any suitable jobs locally for someone with a particular skill set. Hell, if I\'d done that, I\'d be working in Tesco\'s in Cardigan (or something equally low-paid). With a Master\'s degree in Chemistry. (And I would definitely need a car for that! Nearest bus stop to my home in Wales - three miles away. Frequency of buses - one an hour if you\'re lucky.) No thanks.

True there might not be suitable jobs locally, but as you say then you move for them. However just because you have 3 miles to the busstop doesn´t (in my opinion) warrant getting a new car! I´m sure that if you were to become unemplyed as a chemist you wouldn´t be going to interviews every day. WHEN you get a job that´s too far away ofr walking, biking, public transportation you get a car. Until then you use public transportation. Biking 3 miles to the busstop once or twice a week really isn´t that horrendous (or shouldn´t be) if you´re unemployed and REALLY want a job ( but sure - cruising in a car would be easier!)

 

[slah]

Originally posted by Mosch

Orginal gepostet von slah
they told you, that under a given set of circumstances you will be able to receive a certain amount in support, but because they don´t have a signed contract they can´t verify that the circumstances are met, and because of that they can´t promise you a certain amount.

So you\'re saying that it makes perfect sense for somebody to first sign a contract to buy a house, claiming they have the money, and then look for a bank to get a loan?

I don\'t know, that\'s a lot to ask - potentially risking homelessness and a big financial loss to find out if the government would pay your home in that case is pretty gutsy.

We´re not talking bank loans and mortgages here - we´re talking leasing an apartment and support from the state.

The differnece is that banks can say: \"F**k you - you might qualify in regards to our normal policies, BUT you´re so goddam ugly we don´t want you as a customer\". The state can´t.

IF you qualify for support, you qualify for support, and you get support.


In short:
The state says do A, do B and you will be qualified for C. BUT the state can´t give you C before you have shown to have done A and B - I think that´s completely logical to be honest.

So the solution is - go to the state, ask what do I need to do to qualify and DO IT. The state is then required to honour their obligation.

It seems that most people belive that decisions like these are heavily influenced on the individual caseworkers subjective decisions. They aren´t. They are based solely on concrete objective facts - A, B and C.

 

[Amazon warrior]

Originally posted by slah
True, and should/is an option in some cases where the person have more problems than just being unemplyed - like social ineptitude/problems few ressources (I don´t mean financial resources) and other cases like that. If your only problme is that you are unemployed, then the state shouldn´t pay. If your problme is a lack of schooling/education the get your ass back to school like the rest of the people who are educating themselves. Why should the state pay for further schooling just because someone got shitcanned from the job they started in when they wanted money instead of going to school!? Where´s the fairness in that compared to the rest \"us\" who stayed in school?

I don\'t know where you got the impression that waghorn expected the state to pay for his courses - it certainly wasn\'t the impression I got from reading his post. He would have paid for the courses with his own money, but instead he had to use it to live. I imagine the cost of the courses was significantly more than the daily allowance given out by the Jobcentre.

 

[slah]

Originally posted by Amazon warrior

Originally posted by slah
True, and should/is an option in some cases where the person have more problems than just being unemplyed - like social ineptitude/problems few ressources (I don´t mean financial resources) and other cases like that. If your only problme is that you are unemployed, then the state shouldn´t pay. If your problme is a lack of schooling/education the get your ass back to school like the rest of the people who are educating themselves. Why should the state pay for further schooling just because someone got shitcanned from the job they started in when they wanted money instead of going to school!? Where´s the fairness in that compared to the rest \"us\" who stayed in school?

I don\'t know where you got the impression that waghorn expected the state to pay for his courses - it certainly wasn\'t the impression I got from reading his post. He would have paid for the courses with his own money, but instead he had to use it to live. I imagine the cost of the courses was significantly more than the daily allowance given out by the Jobcentre.

No but he expects the state to pay for his living expences while taking the class - so that he can use the money (he should be using on his living expenses) to pay for the class instead.

That is exactly the same as having the state pay for the class.

 

[Sakura]

Originally posted by slah

The state says do A, do B and you will be qualified for C. BUT the state can´t give you C before you have shown to have done A and B - I think that´s completely logical to be honest.

So the solution is - go to the state, ask what do I need to do to qualify and DO IT. The state is then required to honour their obligation.

Well, that\'s the point, isn\'t it? They did not tell me how to qualify! They didn\'t calculate how much money I could get under certain circumstances, they just told me \"Get back with a contract and we\'ll tell you if you get money!\"

And don\'t think it\'s as easy as \"you earn x€ a month, so you could get y€ per month for a flat smaller than z m²\".
There are at least 3 different kinds of support I might get, all granted from different departments, with different requirements, and if I would get one support, it might affect if I get the others.

And the state is not willing to help me at all to get the money I\'d be entitled to.
It certainly is a way to cut expenses....

 

[slah]

Originally posted by Sakura

Originally posted by slah

The state says do A, do B and you will be qualified for C. BUT the state can´t give you C before you have shown to have done A and B - I think that´s completely logical to be honest.

So the solution is - go to the state, ask what do I need to do to qualify and DO IT. The state is then required to honour their obligation.

Well, that\'s the point, isn\'t it? They did not tell me how to qualify! They didn\'t calculate how much money I could get under certain circumstances, they just told me \"Get back with a contract and we\'ll tell you if you get money!\"

And don\'t think it\'s as easy as \"you earn x€ a month, so you could get y€ per month for a flat smaller than z m²\".
There are at least 3 different kinds of support I might get, all granted from different departments, with different requirements, and if I would get one support, it might affect if I get the others.

And the state is not willing to help me at all to get the money I\'d be entitled to.
It certainly is a way to cut expenses....

Well we can agree that this is ofcourse wrong - if you asked you should be told how to qualify, and also how it might affect other forms of support you might be entitled to.

But again - this is not a problem with bureaucracy, it´s simply a case of shoddy caseworking and nothing else.

The rules themselves are (most likely) reasonable.

 

[Mosch]

Orginal gepostet von slah
In short:
The state says do A, do B and you will be qualified for C. BUT the state can´t give you C before you have shown to have done A and B - I think that´s completely logical to be honest.

OK, let me rephrase that, and please note that I am pulling these figures out of my ass (I can estimate the price of an aprtment but don\'t actually know how much the state pays - this is just to compare what would be OK and what happened).

The state tells me to get a signed contract for an apartment no larger than needed. They tell me that if I show them a signed contract they will pay 300€ of this rent.
This is totally acceptable - it means I can go out and look for a flat in my price range, I find one, sign the renting contract and bam, I have a home.

What actually hapened is the following:
The state says that they might pay part of the rent. Sakura is not told how much they would pay or what the guidelines are to qualify for this help. She is, however, told, that, should she bring a signed contract for an apartment which she can\'t even pay for without state help they can decide wether or not she can now live there or if she is royally effed over.


And please, I don\'t care for \"A and B need to be fulfilled for C to happen\", we all agree that this is alright, but if nobody knows what A, B or C is and what the conditions are then what the beep are you supposed to calculate with?

EDIT: Ok, ninjad.

 

[Amazon warrior]

Originally posted by slah

Originally posted by Amazon warrior

Originally posted by slah
True, and should/is an option in some cases where the person have more problems than just being unemplyed - like social ineptitude/problems few ressources (I don´t mean financial resources) and other cases like that. If your only problme is that you are unemployed, then the state shouldn´t pay. If your problme is a lack of schooling/education the get your ass back to school like the rest of the people who are educating themselves. Why should the state pay for further schooling just because someone got shitcanned from the job they started in when they wanted money instead of going to school!? Where´s the fairness in that compared to the rest \"us\" who stayed in school?

I don\'t know where you got the impression that waghorn expected the state to pay for his courses - it certainly wasn\'t the impression I got from reading his post. He would have paid for the courses with his own money, but instead he had to use it to live. I imagine the cost of the courses was significantly more than the daily allowance given out by the Jobcentre.

No but he expects the state to pay for his living expences while taking the class - so that he can use the money (he should be using on his living expenses) to pay for the class instead.

That is exactly the same as having the state pay for the class.

Which makes the state very different from most other employer I\'ve known. Assuming that a particular course is required for someone to advance (or in this case, get off benefits), then a \"typical\" employer would pay for the course and probably give you the day\'s wages on top, for your time. The state, which in this case has set itself up as the \"employer\" (they impose conditions you must meet and have requirements as to how you spend your time, and in return they give you money) until the jobseeker has found proper employment, does neither. So why is that fair?

 

[slah]

Originally posted by Amazon warrior

Originally posted by slah

Originally posted by Amazon warrior

Originally posted by slah
True, and should/is an option in some cases where the person have more problems than just being unemplyed - like social ineptitude/problems few ressources (I don´t mean financial resources) and other cases like that. If your only problme is that you are unemployed, then the state shouldn´t pay. If your problme is a lack of schooling/education the get your ass back to school like the rest of the people who are educating themselves. Why should the state pay for further schooling just because someone got shitcanned from the job they started in when they wanted money instead of going to school!? Where´s the fairness in that compared to the rest \"us\" who stayed in school?

I don\'t know where you got the impression that waghorn expected the state to pay for his courses - it certainly wasn\'t the impression I got from reading his post. He would have paid for the courses with his own money, but instead he had to use it to live. I imagine the cost of the courses was significantly more than the daily allowance given out by the Jobcentre.

No but he expects the state to pay for his living expences while taking the class - so that he can use the money (he should be using on his living expenses) to pay for the class instead.

That is exactly the same as having the state pay for the class.

Which makes the state very different from most other employer I\'ve known. Assuming that a particular course is required for someone to advance (or in this case, get off benefits), then a \"typical\" employer would pay for the course and probably give you the day\'s wages on top, for your time. The state, which in this case has set itself up as the \"employer\" (they impose conditions you must meet and have requirements as to how you spend your time, and in return they give you money) until the jobseeker has found proper employment, does neither. So why is that fair?

Because paying for some peoples education (by paying their living expenses while taking the courses/classes/education) because they once had a job but not paying for everybody elses would be discriminatory.

The role of the state when \"normal\" people become unemployed isn´t to magically conjure up a new job or upgrade your skills completely free. Their job is to make sure your ordinary reasonable living expenses are covered while YOU - YOURSELF - find a job, or until YOU - YOURSELF - decide to upgrade your skills by going back to school. At the same time they should ofcourse give you any practical help needed to improve your chances of getting a job - access to computers, help with improving applications, discussions about how to search for jobs, advice on jobs where your skillset might be usable and so on.

 

[Dragonsreach]

Moderator Message

I\'m becoming very concerned about the direction that this thread is taking.

SLAH; you are stepping very close the line as regards turning this initial discussion into a commentary against Waghorn and the situation he finds himself in.

You may have experience of Job Seeking/State Support in Denmark, but not in the UK where circumstances and regulations are different.

 

[slah]

I aplogogize if my posts are seen as attacks on Waghorn - that´s not how they are intended (allthough when I re-read them I can see that some of my wordings does seem to suggest it).

My point was only to show that allthough it´s easy to agree that the state sometimes move slow and seem inflexible there often is a reason for it, and shouldn´t just be taken as generic \"bureacracy\".

Again apologies to Waghorn. Being familiar with the area (having been on both sides of the table so to speak), I do understand the frustration being in this situation can cause, and it was not my intention to turn this dicsussion into a \"waghorn thread\"

 

[Dragonsreach]

SLAH: to echo the words of reverend...Fair Do\'s.

 

[Beelzebrush]

With the amount of money you hand over to the state every payday when employed you\'d ideally and realistically not expect to be dicked-about to the extent that one gets dicked-about by desk-dwelling f**kwits... I\'ve always thought the inefficiency was just a ploy to make you give in anyway.

Most people who find themselves in this position, don\'t want to be in this position and deserve a little respect imo...

The people who do want to be unemployed never have problems getting benefit anyway as they know the system so well that it offers no discouragement.

And, in light of the fiasco of MPs expenses and the extent that the rot has crept in, I think these petty bureaucrats have a bloody nerve to refuse the pittance of a benefit that\'s on offer to anyone in need of it.

 

[Kombi]

Here in the wide brown land downunder, unemployement is handled by centrelink. They used to handle job matching, employment type services as well, but those roles were moved to the private sector a while back.

I\'m currently between jobs, so I get to deal with centrelink on a fortnightly basis.

I\'m currently dealing with depression, and my job network provider have suggested that I might be too depressed to look for work. I left it to them to organise a job capacity assessment, as they said they were going to.

6 weeks ago, I went in to put my form in, and mentioned it to the guy who processed my form. He then tells me the exact opposit of what the job network people had said, that it works one way, not another. I\'m frustrated, but I go and talk to my job network people about it, trying to figure out what\'s going on. The answer: Leave it with me.

4 weeks ago, I go in to centrelink again, put my form in, again, processed by the same guy as last fortnight. He says to me \"I wasn\'t sure if your name was peter or paul.\" I say, in as even a tone as I can manage, because I\'m stunned, \"Well, you could have looked at my form, which has my full name printed on the top in bold letters. You could also look at my file on your screen there, as you\'ve punched in my number and brought it up. Your third option is to ask me, since I am sitting right here.\" I think my voice may have carried an edge of what I was thinking because his reply was, \"you really don\'t like coming here, do you?\"

Staggering stupidity aside, I get my form processed and call into my job network member to see how things are going with my job capacity assessment. \"Oh, your consultant went into another job somewhere else last week.\" \"ok, could I please speak to my new consultant.\" \"She\'s not in today, sorry.\"

Today, I go in to have my form processed, so I can pay rent and bills and all of that great stuff. I get my form processed, that\'s fine. but the person processing it (not the windowlicker from the past two fortnights, thankfully) mentions that I have one week to start my work for the dole. Once you\'ve been unemployed here for long enough, you have to do two days a week at a work for the dole program. I\'ve done a couple, before my last job I was unemployed for nearly 5 years. Gardening, soup kitchen type stuff has been the norm. I\'ve also been on programs with people doing community service ordered by the courts, but I won\'t get into that.

So, I go to my job network provider to get this sorted out once and for all. They\'re in the process of closing their office. Their contract has run out and isn\'t being renewed by the federal government.

The one thing that gives me hope through all of this is that I\'ve not yet raised my voice or gotten angry. A sign of maturity, I hope, even in the face of colossal stupidity and falling through the cracks.

 

[waghorn41]

Let me make this clear to Slah. I was not asking the state to pay me to live, or fund the IT courses which would have secured me a job - even if it meant commuting 60-70 miles each way. My complaint was that they would not allow me to use MY money for the courses as I would not fit their criteria for being available for work. Please bear in mind, as I pointed out, that these were 3 separate one-day courses. And they later told me the opposite when my money had run out, I still had no job and they tyhen wanted me to do the courses with money I\'d already used to live on. If they\'d let me do the courses I would probably have been back in employment within a month!
As a result I had to go onto state benfits and stay on them for far too long. yes, I finally got a job last year, without help from the state. But it\'s been a long hard 10 year slog. And just to put things in perspective I did a lot of unpaid voluntary work in those years.