Jobseekers Referred To As "lying Thieving Bastards" By Government Contractor

[Gone baby gone]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21196616

LTB label for disabled and jobless people 'offensive'

On paper, Linda Smith's job with an Aberdeen company was straightforward - she was meant to be helping the long-term unemployed - many of them disabled - to find jobs and move off benefits.

The reality, she said, was a corporate culture that saw staff in training sessions referring to those same people as LTBs - code for "lying, thieving bastards".

"That is how they are referred to," she said of the clients of Triage, which is a key player in the government's ambitious plan to pay private companies to move people from benefit into work.

Mrs Smith said her time working at Triage - a sub-contractor to two of those main providers - was an eye-opener. She said the nature of the scheme is that the firms earn more money from taking on the disabled as clients.

"These people were probably more difficult to place in employment for us as employment workers, but for them (the company) these people were bigger money... these people were the bucks, the ker-ching."

But once those people were on the company's books, and an initial fee paid, Mrs Smith said the company - which operates in Scotland and northern England - told its staff to spend as little time and effort as possible on helping them find jobs.

She said the practice is known as "parking". Four other former Triage employees told the BBC similar stories of being told to "park" clients rather than actively help them find work. They also confirmed the use of the term "LTBs" to describe their clients.

So, now we know how austerity isn't actually reducing the spend... private sector <cough> efficiency*.

On a side note, can't be long before the armband idea is floated. This year's Tory party conference?

* = Efficiently absorbing taxpayers money and giving nothing of value back for it.

[Injin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.[1]

Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.

An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.

[The Eagle]

Everything to distract from the real lying thieving bastards, the banksters!

'Divide and conquer' at work, when will people finally stop falling for it?

[GinAndPlatonic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.

Talking rubbish

[richc]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21196616

So, now we know how austerity isn't actually reducing the spend... private sector <cough> efficiency*.

On a side note, can't be long before the armband idea is floated. This year's Tory party conference?

* = Efficiently absorbing taxpayers money and giving nothing of value back for it.

It would be interesting to know how much of your paycheck you contribute each month to support all of these people on benefits. You seem to spend an awful lot of time complaining that they don't receive enough. Presumably, you're completely free to hand over more of your own income to charity to support them. Or do you just think that someone else should do it?

[Injin]

It would be interesting to know how much of your paycheck you contribute each month to support all of these people on benefits. You seem to spend an awful lot of time complaining that they don't receive enough. Presumably, you're completely free to hand over more of your own income to charity to support them. Or do you just think that someone else should do it?

The bulk of benefits are simply the state cancelling their demands for money and then sticking it on the accounting sheet like it's a win.

i.e. I demand you give me £150 a month to empty your bins.

You sign some paperwork and I stop demanding £150 to empty your bins.

Cost of emptying bins - pennies per householdm but I get to put you down as getting £150 and I can still charge other people the £150 because you won't sort something else out for yourself.

[Gone baby gone]

It would be interesting to know how much of your paycheck you contribute each month to support all of these people on benefits. You seem to spend an awful lot of time complaining that they don't receive enough. Presumably, you're completely free to hand over more of your own income to charity to support them. Or do you just think that someone else should do it?

What has that got to do with a goverment sub-contractor using offensive language to refer to it's clients?

And then taking money from the state and doing sweet FA?

Are you defending them, or was your dribble a feeble attempt at an ad hominem attack*?

* If so, you might want to sharpen your false teeth up a bit, my granny could do better and she's been dead for 18 years!

[richc]

What has that got to do with a goverment sub-contractor using offensive language to refer to it's clients?

And then taking money from the state and doing sweet FA?

Are you defending them, or was your dribble a feeble attempt at an ad hominem attack*?

* If so, you might want to sharpen your false teeth up a bit, my granny could do better and she's been dead for 18 years!

OK, I get it, no one is allowed to state the obvious that some benefit claimants actually are lying thieving bastards. Not PC enough for you.

This article is inane. Of course, the work programme is going to focus resources on the people who are most likely to succeed. Not doing so would be completely irresponsible and a waste of resources. It's the exact same thing that they should be doing if this programme were run as a government department. They're not doing "sweet FA" as you claim, they're using the money they have to get the best benefit out of it. You claim this is an example of demonisation, but that's exactly what you're doing yourself. Your criticism isn't based on facts or outcomes. You're just parroting the line put out by the statist, corrupt, and inefficient BBC that something is being done in the private sector, and so is, by definition, bad.

[Injin]

OK, I get it, no one is allowed to state the obvious that some benefit claimants actually are lying thieving bastards. Not PC enough for you.

This article is inane. Of course, the work programme is going to focus resources on the people who are most likely to succeed. Not doing so would be completely irresponsible and a waste of resources. It's the exact same thing that they should be doing if this programme were run as a government department. They're not doing "sweet FA" as you claim, they're using the money they have to get the best benefit out of it. You claim this is an example of demonisation, but that's exactly what you're doing yourself. Your criticism isn't based on facts or outcomes. You're just parroting the line put out by the statist, corrupt, and inefficient BBC that something is being done in the private sector, and so is, by definition, bad.

The point of the benefits system to make sure people don't find work!

[interestrateripoff]

Impressive.

[Gone baby gone]

This article is inane. Of course, the work programme is going to focus resources on the people who are most likely to succeed. Not doing so would be completely irresponsible and a waste of resources.

It's not so much "focusing resources on the people who are most likely to succeed", it's the fraud of putting people who they have no intention of helping, on to a scheme purely for financial gain.

The net result being, you and I have to pay more taxes, because we are funding a corporate welfare scheme, and getting nothing back.

Wipe the spittle from your screen and read the paragraph that begins "She said the practice is known as 'parking'."

Then tell me again how this is a good thing for taxpayers.

[erat_forte]

The point of the benefits system to make sure people don't find work!

... and to divert public funds into the pockets of private companies and landowners of course.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

... and to divert public funds into the pockets of private companies and landowners of course state apparatchiks.

Have state will apparatchik

[long time lurking]

It`s all about removing people from the unemployment figures nothing more nothing less ,it would be far cheaper to leave them on the benefits than to pay some one to "HELP" them back to work

The quoted figure of 750k less people unemployed has got to be mostly due to these type of schemes and workfare ,workfare has forced 878,000 to sing up to it since it started, and they are on it for six months ,I would bet they are not classed as unemployed when they are on it but they are still in receipt of their benefits with a fee to the workfare providers on top

[Biggus]

The current mob come across as self righteous toffs, demonizing the poor and giving tax cuts to their mates. Pretty awful bunch of people. That said I could not bring myself to vote for Miliband and Balls. I guess it's UKIP for me.

[byron78]

It beggars belief that:

A ) People didn't see this coming

B ) People are defending these catastrophically wasteful (tax payers money wasteful) back to work schemes.

Aside from the fact that it stands to reason a private company will do absolutely everything it can to turn a profit (including "parking" and making sure they get as much as they can from the public sector), the one thing they can't do is create work where there isn't any.

All Dave the D-head has really done here is make the public sector even more inefficient and expensive.

Real world examples:

Friend of mine was unemployed for 12 months. Not through any fault of her own. Not for want of trying. She was moved onto one of these privately run back to work schemes scams (literally had one interview) and the same week she was lucky enough to find a job off her own back (she had already been called in for an interview for said job before being moved onto the private work scam). The private work scam were paid thousands for finding her work even though they did nothing.

I've other friends who have been "parked" , and the only ones I know who have found work have been persuaded by the back to work scam to declare themselves self employed and claim tax credits. Private work scam gets paid thousands per tax credit convert, unemployment figures go down, and the work scam looks "successful".

[SHERWICK]

It`s all about removing people from the unemployment figures nothing more nothing less ,it would be far cheaper to leave them on the benefits than to pay some one to "HELP" them back to work

The quoted figure of 750k less people unemployed has got to be mostly due to these type of schemes and workfare ,workfare has forced 878,000 to sing up to it since it started, and they are on it for six months ,I would bet they are not classed as unemployed when they are on it but they are still in receipt of their benefits with a fee to the workfare providers on top

One wonders why a lot of people (not the severely disabled of course) cannot help themselves back to work these days?

E.g. byron's "Friend of mine was unemployed for 12 months. Not through any fault of her own."

Why was she unemployed for 12 months?

[doomed]

Well it is pretty obvious where this is all heading, just wish it would hurry up and get there.

[byron78]

One wonders why a lot of people (not the severely disabled of course) cannot help themselves back to work these days?

E.g. byron's "Friend of mine was unemployed for 12 months. Not through any fault of her own."

Why was she unemployed for 12 months?

Are you even remotely serious?

Because there aren't any jobs round my way you loon.

That's quite a big issue for the majority of the unemployed you know. A lack of anyone to employ them...

[crashmonitor]

One of the main problems with working age disability benefits is that there is no incentive for claimants to get well and they are likely to exaggerate their condition, stay fat or do whatever it takes to stay on the higher benefit rates. Once on diasability benefits, the system usually ensures it is an early retirement package.

Know quite a lot of people around my age (48) that have given up and their one aim in life is to pass the disability test be it a bad back or psychological problems.

Edit. Of course the Governement are trying to reassess everybody for the reasons given above.

[SHERWICK]

Are you even remotely serious?

Because there aren't any jobs round my way you loon.

That's quite a big issue for the majority of the unemployed you know. A lack of anyone to employ them...

Questions:

1. What area are you in?

2. Can she (and her family) not move to where there are jobs?

As someone who has had to move countries to find work + take work in pubs/betting shops/ASDA/Boots as a stop-gap + sleep on friend's sofas for months, I find it difficult to empathise to be honest.

[richc]

It's not so much "focusing resources on the people who are most likely to succeed", it's the fraud of putting people who they have no intention of helping, on to a scheme purely for financial gain.

The net result being, you and I have to pay more taxes, because we are funding a corporate welfare scheme, and getting nothing back.

Wipe the spittle from your screen and read the paragraph that begins "She said the practice is known as 'parking'."

Then tell me again how this is a good thing for taxpayers.

Did you read the article? Did you skip over that bit where it says they don't get paid in full if they don't find them a job? Flushing money down the toilet by focusing on the people who can't or won't get a job isn't going to save taxpayers any money. Presumably you're only going to be happy when this agency goes bankrupt, having wasted all their resources on the difficult cases, and then all these people can return to sitting on their backsides waiting for the perfect job to fall in their lap.

[Injin]

Did you read the article? Did you skip over that bit where it says they don't get paid in full if they don't find them a job? Flushing money down the toilet by focusing on the people who can't or won't get a job isn't going to save taxpayers any money. Presumably you're only going to be happy when this agency goes bankrupt, having wasted all their resources on the difficult cases, and then all these people can return to sitting on their backsides waiting for the perfect job to fall in their lap.

Oh, ffs.

It's government policy to have double digit employment + lie about the figures and has been since thatchers time.

[Oliver Sutton]

Modern equivalent of an economy based on everyone taking in other people's washing.

Everyone can get a job finding other people jobs.

[byron78]

Questions:

1. What area are you in?

2. Can she (and her family) not move to where there are jobs?

As someone who has had to move countries to find work + take work in pubs/betting shops/ASDA/Boots as a stop-gap + sleep on friend's sofas for months, I find it difficult to empathise to be honest.

Isle of Wight.

All her family are on the Island (and employed there) so no.

She could have moved of course, but how exactly do you move to another area without any money, place to stay, or guarantee of work when you get there?

As I said, she found work eventually, but it took time. Huge numbers cut from public sector here and little private sector work - about 200 applying for every 1 position I believe.

You do strike me as the sort who would struggle with empathy yes. As someone who doesn't, I feel for you.