luc
Fluffy!
Posts: 41 
|
Post by luc on Apr 2, 2009 18:41:31 GMT
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/568f36a0-1c97-11de-977c-00144feabdc0.htmlUnemployed single mothers have been enticed to join government-funded job schemes with offers of shopping vouchers, washing machines, games consoles and Christmas turkeys by private sector groups whose fees are partly tied to how many volunteers they sign up. Even as the numbers desperate to find work has soared, private providers of welfare services have run promotions and “prize draws” to convince lone parents to take up free jobseeker support. The so-called Employment Zone programme is designed to engage people who have shown little interest in finding work. Providers have an incentive to round up volunteers because their payments are tied to both the lone parents who register and the number who eventually find employment. Most of the fee, which can be £5,000 or more, is dependent on a job placement. Incentives are used by some of the leading private providers, including Reed-in-Partnership, Working Links and A4e. They see them as an essential way to reach marginalised groups. But some providers oppose such promotions, claiming they are misleading and inappropriate. Laurie Russell, chief executive of the not-for-profit Wise Group, said: “We decided some time ago that at the initial stages, it is the quality of service, not gimmicks, that ensure people get into sustainable employment.” James Purnell, welfare secretary, insists he will resist pressure to switch resources to help the newly unemployed as the recession bites, saying it is morally right to “plough ahead” with schemes to support people with scant experience of working. Officials have given providers a free hand to use incentives, as long as they are “appropriate and proportionate”. Leaflets seen by the Financial Times offer single parents prizes such as “£100 Argos vouchers” and “free leisure vouchers”. A “win Christmas offer” offered parents the chance to win a treasure chest of goods, including a Nintendo Wii, iPod, some make-up, a food hamper, decorations, a turkey, a digital camera, a DVD player and a flatscreen television. An advert saying “Single parent? Win your rent for a year” is one of several withdrawn as “unsuitable” by the Department of Work and Pensions. The DWP said the £100m-a-year scheme plays an “important role” in helping lone parents who have been “distanced from the labour market for a long time”. It said incentives are permissable, but it retains the right to withdraw those that are unsuitable.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Apr 2, 2009 18:46:55 GMT
Why target single parents though?
Surely the key group to get into work are the 16 - 20 year olds who've no experience of work?
If they've never had a job by 20, what's the hope for them for the rest of their lives?
Jail. Dole. Jail.
I don't get the logic.
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 2, 2009 18:48:01 GMT
Why target single parents though? Surely the key group to get into work are the 16 - 20 year olds who've no experience of work? If they've never had a job by 20, what's the hope for them for the rest of their lives? Jail. Dole. Jail. I don't get the logic. Perhaps it's the same group in some cases. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Apr 2, 2009 18:54:43 GMT
Why target single parents though? Surely the key group to get into work are the 16 - 20 year olds who've no experience of work? If they've never had a job by 20, what's the hope for them for the rest of their lives? Jail. Dole. Jail. I don't get the logic. Perhaps it's the same group in some cases. More like they're the ones who made the other ones single parents in the first place . . |
|
luc
Fluffy!
Posts: 41
|
Post by luc on Apr 2, 2009 19:05:06 GMT
I actually work for one of the named companies - the incentives offered are actually offered to more than just single parents as part of a larger campaign to try to get the long term employed into work (not specifically single parents), and if we made a 5k fee on every person placed in a job who was long term unemployed, we'd be able to buy Microsoft and the moon. Furthermore, the incentives the company offers are dependent on being placed. You don't bother to turn up? You get nothing. I suppose the more cynical will try to get a placement, work for as long as their prize takes to clear, then go back to the dole or whatever - but what would be the point after all the trouble getting the placement in the first place?
I just thought it was a bit of shoddy reporting, owing more to the "let's get people whipped up about paying benefit scroungers" school of thought rather than the more positive "Let's get the long term unemployed into work".
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Apr 2, 2009 19:14:38 GMT
But if you were dedicated to a life on the dole, an iPod and a bit of make-up seems a pretty small incentive for changing the whole way you live your life.
So do young men get iPods and stuff too if you get them a job?
|
|
luc
Fluffy!
Posts: 41
|
Post by luc on Apr 2, 2009 19:28:27 GMT
But if you were dedicated to a life on the dole, an iPod and a bit of make-up seems a pretty small incentive for changing the whole way you live your life. So do young men get iPods and stuff too if you get them a job? Yeah, they do. No amount of incentives really will get the life long unemployed back into employment, only luck and support will - the incentives might help catch those wavering, but ultimately will not impact on the overall statistics. I just thought it was a strange article to appear in the FT, is all. |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Apr 2, 2009 19:45:46 GMT
The big danger in offering incentives is that it sets a kind of precedent.
Look at me with the Damart catalogue (yes, Riotgrrl, I KNOW, but their thermal undies do work). If I buy now, in a month's time an even bigger free gift will be offered but I will havebought all the vests and knee length knickers that I need. So I hang on in the hope that next month the free plastic foldaway shopping bag and diamond (paste) necklace will be replaced with a pair of Brasher superlite boots or a pure cotton superking duvet cover and fitted sheets, or something equally useful and expensive.
|
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Apr 2, 2009 19:52:48 GMT
The big danger in offering incentives is that it sets a kind of precedent. Look at me with the Damart catalogue (yes, Riotgrrl, I KNOW, but their thermal undies do work). If I buy now, in a month's time an even bigger free gift will be offered but I will havebought all the vests and knee length knickers that I need. So I hang on in the hope that next month the free plastic foldaway shopping bag and diamond (paste) necklace will be replaced with a pair of Brasher superlite boots or a pure cotton superking duvet cover and fitted sheets, or something equally useful and expensive. Why not buy the superlite boots and the superking duvet cover with the money you have saved by not buying thermal undies? |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Apr 2, 2009 19:53:47 GMT
But if you were dedicated to a life on the dole, an iPod and a bit of make-up seems a pretty small incentive for changing the whole way you live your life. So do young men get iPods and stuff too if you get them a job? Yeah, they do. No amount of incentives really will get the life long unemployed back into employment, only luck and support will - the incentives might help catch those wavering, but ultimately will not impact on the overall statistics. I just thought it was a strange article to appear in the FT, is all. Yeah. It's not really a FT type of article, is it? I haven't read the FT for years - and only rarely ever. Has it gone all tabloidy? |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Apr 2, 2009 19:59:05 GMT
The big danger in offering incentives is that it sets a kind of precedent. Look at me with the Damart catalogue (yes, Riotgrrl, I KNOW, but their thermal undies do work). If I buy now, in a month's time an even bigger free gift will be offered but I will havebought all the vests and knee length knickers that I need. So I hang on in the hope that next month the free plastic foldaway shopping bag and diamond (paste) necklace will be replaced with a pair of Brasher superlite boots or a pure cotton superking duvet cover and fitted sheets, or something equally useful and expensive. Why not buy the superlite boots and the superking duvet cover with the money you have saved by not buying thermal undies? Because I would be too cold to go out shopping for them, RG, that's why. You wait till you're my age! I would end up popping into Debenhams and paying twice the price for a merino wool undergarment then have no money left for even a poly-cotton sheet. |
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Apr 2, 2009 20:00:40 GMT
Why not buy the superlite boots and the superking duvet cover with the money you have saved by not buying thermal undies? Because I would be too cold to go out shopping for them, RG, that's why. You wait till you're my age! I would end up popping into Debenhams and paying twice the price for a merino wool undergarment then have no money left for even a poly-cotton sheet. Sheesh. You make things so complicated for yourself housey. Get a Debenhams Store Card. And buy both. |
|
|
|
Post by swl on Apr 2, 2009 20:03:57 GMT
I can understand the logic of this. To someone who hasn't worked, they have no sense of the feeling of self-worth and pride having a job brings.
I think part of the problem is there isn't the same stigma associated with being unemployed. This started when I was at school in the early 80s when teachers openly told us that most of us had little chance of working at all under Thatcher (fucking long-haired Marxist gits). Benefits became a right and an entitlement - beating the "system" was seen as one in the eye for "that cow Thatcher". People were encouraged to screw every penny they could. Drop in "workers" centres appeared in town centres paid for by Labour Councils where the unemployed were encouraged to go and find out what they could get. Inside more long-haired Marxist gits told you all the tricks - "Tell them your pipes burst and they'll give you money from the Crisis Fund for a new carpet. You can do that every 6 months." The unemployed came to be seen as victims of Thatcher - people pitied them instead of telling them to get off their arses.
Now we've actually got entire generations who have never worked and who's children have never worked.
I could rant on and on about this, but I won't. People blame Thatcher, but I blame the bloody socialists who used ordinary people as foot soldiers to fight their ideological war.
|
|
|
|
Post by bonbonlarue on Apr 2, 2009 20:28:57 GMT
I know that I would have a greater 'disposable income' on benefits.
My pride keeps me struggling.
But at least I don't have to watch daytime TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on Apr 2, 2009 20:59:42 GMT
Maybe looking after a kid on little money is a job and instead of trying to cajole these young women who likely have no great qualifications or experience into drudgery where they're not likely to get any or to have much chance to do the childcare they've chosen, the effort should be placed into making sure they do that well and encouraging part-time education so they can come to jobs with something to offer once their kids are teenage and they've gained some life experience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Apr 2, 2009 22:43:51 GMT
James Purnell - one of those people with a face that you're just itching to hit!
The single parents I've spoken to who would like to look for work, or go back into FE in order to help them do the work that they want to do have ever wanted is reasonable Government help with the spiralling cost of childcare whilst they try to improve their lives for their own good - and that of the children.
|
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Apr 2, 2009 23:36:58 GMT
Maybe looking after a kid on little money is a job and instead of trying to cajole these young women who likely have no great qualifications or experience into drudgery where they're not likely to get any or to have much chance to do the childcare they've chosen, the effort should be placed into making sure they do that well and encouraging part-time education so they can come to jobs with something to offer once their kids are teenage and they've gained some life experience. Excellent idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Flatypus on Apr 2, 2009 23:52:55 GMT
"The work they want to do". Few of us get that. Would they stilll want to do for its own sake voluntarily without payment? That is the only valid test of whether anyone genuinely wants to do anything - if they have an absolutely free choice to be just as qell - or even better - off when not doing it. All else is under duress.
I understand perfectly well that there are woman who want sex with strangers they detest, and men who give similar hated strangers everything they have. It is entirely their choice - because they'd rather stay alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Apr 3, 2009 7:28:26 GMT
James Purnell - one of those people with a face that you're just itching to hit! The single parents I've spoken to who would like to look for work, or go back into FE in order to help them do the work that they want to do have ever wanted is reasonable Government help with the spiralling cost of childcare whilst they try to improve their lives for their own good - and that of the children. I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, Patrick, because childcare costs are largely paid for people in work. Are you saying they should also be paid to those going to college? |
|
|
|
Post by housesparrow on Apr 3, 2009 7:36:20 GMT
"The work they want to do". Few of us get that. Would they stilll want to do for its own sake voluntarily without payment? That is the only valid test of whether anyone genuinely wants to do anything - if they have an absolutely free choice to be just as qell - or even better - off when not doing it. All else is under duress. That part of the post is very true. Most of us don't have much choice when it comes to jobs. The days when school leavers tossed their arrogant heads and said "I'm-an-artist-and-I-demand-a-job-using-my-talents" are long gone I think- most kids have a much better grasp of reality. Your earlier remark about paying mothers properly to look after their children is a bit pie-in-the-sky because they aren't subject to any quality control, like the rest of us! A social services employee came to talk to us volunteers (yup, I work for nothing and enjoy it) about the new scheme for single mums and said that statistically children whose parent(s) never worked are more likely than not to spend a lifetime on benefits themselves. Sobering thought, no? |
|
A.P.P.S
S C 
