Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
teddyboy

Jobcuts In The Jobcentres

Recommended Posts

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4617846.stm

The irony of this is fantastic!!!!

Cutting up to 30,000 jobs in the Job Centres and saying that unemployment is LOW.

The union claims telephone calls to JobCentres are going unanswered, while people are having to wait hours to see an adviser.

They also warned that staff were facing an increasing number of assaults because of high levels of frustration being built up by the delays.

Is this not a sign they are overrun with claimants???

Whatever next????

TB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Job Centers are responsible for processing unemployment benefits, therefore by cutting 30,000 jobs they will make huge savings not just on wages but on the benefits queues that will build up as a result.

The loser will be the man or women who worked their ars3 off and was unfortunate enough to lose their job through offshoring or the import of cheap labour. Those already in the system long term will be just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mum works for the job centre/dss thing in the claiment bit and they'd shut another office and merged them so they now only get a car parking space every other week as more people are in the one building and are doing more work as they've "let a lot of people go"

I do remember in '91 the manchester aytown dump of a signing on place was massively understaffed in the job centre bit - you cuold only take one job number to the desk...

Edited by SarahBell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually this doesn't suprise me, I had the pleasure of visiting one (first time, hopefully the last) to sort out a system as a subcontractor, EDS's incompetence is only matched by the genuine doltery seen in these places, they are over staffed to the extreme, every facility under the sun is provided and most back office work consists of endless strategy alignment meetings, and when I mean endless it would be enough to make David Brent cry.

No wonder nothing works, there are so many benefits/allowances/breaks/perks and so many ways in which they interact the whole lot is a joke. The sooner they privatise Jobcentre Plus throw out half the useless staff and actually concentrate on getting people back to work instead of establishing "relationships" with longterm clients and thinking up ingenious new ways of rewarding people for not working, all to the better.

At least those 30,000 who are getting the axe know the way round the benefits system when the time comes, no doubt the whole experience will leave them very 'stressed'. But I doubt it somehow, the government never seems to sack anyone, it just makes good headlines, Brown hasn't managed to sack any of the 80,000 civil servants, he has actually added to the count and the office that is responsible for cutting waste has added thousands of new consultants.

It takes a crisis before they actually do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

from that article.... "Unless the department wake up and halt the job cuts programme and look objectively at staffing levels, there is a real danger that some of the most disadvantaged in society will be let down and no longer get the hand-up they need."

Do they mean hand out??? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it costs over 500 pounds to issue 100 pounds in benifit

This fact total staggered me

of course job centres should be closed and merged they just dont have the customers they once did, you dont need the same amount of people for 1 million unemployed you did for 3 million.

So they thought how can they keep themselves busy, so they starting harrasing people big time to get a job. forcing them onto schemes and pressurising them all the way.

personaly it would be cheaper to not bother at all and just hand out the money, becuase anyone that wants to work will work anyway, and find work anyway.but it justifys there existence.

Its much like the council tax system, the tax system, all the systems they encourage all the red tape as it justifies there jobs.

Now i dont claim to be a genius but i know for a fact i could revolutionise the systen with a couple simple measures

1. flat tax system like many countries are adopting

2.council taxes collected by a local income tax based system

3.fixed rate of unemployment, pensions and sick pay, no extra allowances just flat rate no more, no more heating allowance and carers allowance and war widows allowance and clothing allowance, and allowances upon allowances.

4. leave the people that are fit to work but dont work on the very basic fixed amount and let them live that way, no need to dream up schemes and agenda's and ideas and courses ect, if these people want to work they will find work, you cant change there attitude so why try.

5.get rid of housing benifit, include as the basic benifit, let them pay and look for there own houses instead of all abusing the system including landlords.

6.fire the people not needed now the above is implimented.

I cant believe we put up with this crap at all

i guess doing all the above would probably make 3 million unemployed

Then we could start on the nhs with a insurance voucher scheme reddemable at the private hospital of your choice and the voucher given to every citizen, thus all will still be entitled to free healthcare, but where they go for it will be competitive.We could stick another million on the dole doing this.

after this lets look at firemen that think there worth 40k a year, policeman who's average wage is 37k a year, headteachers on 100k a year, embassy staff, the home office.

Edited by homeless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... 2.council taxes collected by a local income tax based system

some interesting comments, but I have a real problem with this one above. We already have various systems which collect taxes according to what you earn, what you spend, or alternatively what you have left over.... why should every tax be based on ability to pay?

Why should at least some taxes not be based on at least partially a per capita charge... should absolutely everything be subsidised by those who have more, many of whom have so because they have got their finger out...?

Edited by xian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

some interesting comments, but I have a real problem with this one above. We already have various systems which collect taxes according to what you earn, what you spend, or alternatively what you have left over.... why should every tax be based on ability to pay?

Why should at least some taxes not be based on at least partially a per capita charge... should absolutely everything be subsidised by those who have more, many of whom have so because they have got their finger out...?

Indeed, but it's "fair", whatever that means.

As I understood it the "rates" were originally just a surcharge to pay for basic services, we all need water, our rubbish collected, we all use the same streets that need to be maintained and lit, same goes for the parks etc. You pay for a universal service and if you had a larger house then it was reasonable to assume you would consume more water and produce more waste and therefore should pay a little more, no doubt this would also subsidise the lesser off to a degree and cover the generous non payers.

However, how did a basic surcharge that nobody worried about transform itself into a punitive tax on a nice kitchen or the view from your own window? It's just a tax for its own sake, it isn't "for" anything.

Edited by BuyingBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, but it's "fair", whatever that means.

As I understood it the "rates" were originally just a surcharge to pay for basic services, we all need water, our rubbish collected, we all use the same streets that need to be maintained and lit, same goes for the parks etc. You pay for a universal service and if you had a larger house then it was reasonable to assume you would consume more water and produce more waste and therefore should pay a little more, no doubt this would also subsidise the lesser off to a degree and cover the generous non payers.

However, how did a basic surcharge that nobody worried about transform itself into a punitive tax on a nice kitchen or the view from your own window? It's just a tax for its own sake, it isn't "for" anything.

"Fair" is dependent upon perspective.

Anyway, since the large part of local expenditure is funded by central govt. the income tax and NI payer already pays according to financial ability, so why should those who have made an effort be further expected to subsidise those who consume the same type of amenities, and probably in greater quantity?

Good earners generally work hard and pay alot of tax. Many delay family to develop a career. Many have no children, therefore do not use schools. Many use private education therefore freeing up public education resources. Generally those who do have a family are likely to have fewer kids in their lifetime than low earners and benefit claimants, and so again use fewer resources. They work long hours, and do not have the time to use libraries, swimming pools, council maintained parks etc. They drive cars, and have less use for street lighting. They cause less crime, and are less rarely victims of it, so do not consume law enforcement resources to the same extent.

Yet, because they earn more yet consume less, they are still required to pay more tax?

They already pay more through income tax, NI, VAT, IHT, CGT.. etc.

Why should one of the last remaining taxes which is already partially based on ability to pay be fully transitioned to being totally based on ability to pay?

Should absolutely every tax be based on a Marxist philosophy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fair" is dependent upon perspective.

Anyway, since the large part of local expenditure is funded by central govt. the income tax and NI payer already pays according to financial ability, so why should those who have made an effort be further expected to subsidise those who consume the same type of amenities, and probably in greater quantity?

Good earners generally work hard and pay alot of tax. Many delay family to develop a career. Many have no children, therefore do not use schools. Many use private education therefore freeing up public education resources. Generally those who do have a family are likely to have fewer kids in their lifetime than low earners and benefit claimants, and so again use fewer resources. They work long hours, and do not have the time to use libraries, swimming pools, council maintained parks etc. They drive cars, and have less use for street lighting. They cause less crime, and are less rarely victims of it, so do not consume law enforcement resources to the same extent.

Yet, because they earn more yet consume less, they are still required to pay more tax?

They already pay more through income tax, NI, VAT, IHT, CGT.. etc.

Why should one of the last remaining taxes which is already partially based on ability to pay be fully transitioned to being totally based on ability to pay?

Should absolutely every tax be based on a Marxist philosophy?

Yes, because with only a little bad luck you could end up on the scrapheap too. Have an accident, not able to work, then what? Relative has an accident, you need to be a full-time carer, lose your job and need to get the bus again, get your misses up the duff and decide to keep it, get mugged as you climb out of your beemer etc etc. I'm not a fudge-style socialist but I think the better off should pay more. At the moment, the marginal tax rate is highest for lower earners, which IMO is not right.

Edited by FollowTheBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fair" is dependent upon perspective.

Anyway, since the large part of local expenditure is funded by central govt. the income tax and NI payer already pays according to financial ability, so why should those who have made an effort be further expected to subsidise those who consume the same type of amenities, and probably in greater quantity?

Good earners generally work hard and pay alot of tax. Many delay family to develop a career. Many have no children, therefore do not use schools. Many use private education therefore freeing up public education resources. Generally those who do have a family are likely to have fewer kids in their lifetime than low earners and benefit claimants, and so again use fewer resources. They work long hours, and do not have the time to use libraries, swimming pools, council maintained parks etc. They drive cars, and have less use for street lighting. They cause less crime, and are less rarely victims of it, so do not consume law enforcement resources to the same extent.

Yet, because they earn more yet consume less, they are still required to pay more tax?

They already pay more through income tax, NI, VAT, IHT, CGT.. etc.

Why should one of the last remaining taxes which is already partially based on ability to pay be fully transitioned to being totally based on ability to pay?

Should absolutely every tax be based on a Marxist philosophy?

Have you got any facts to back up these statements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think in the way that public housing as been farmed out to the commercial sector, the job centres are going the same way. plus most of the jobs are on the internet/paper.

i'm not sure if there is a need anymore for a local centre for an additional copy of every job in town on a board, what you shuffle to the desk with a advisor, who then calls the employer for you, and then tells you what the employer said....

i think also that the budget for that has been merged with the general benefits system - which is not for job seeking. they are basically shedding the job ads bit - but not the benefit claims bit.

its a sensible move IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think in the way that public housing as been farmed out to the commercial sector, the job centres are going the same way. plus most of the jobs are on the internet/paper.

i'm not sure if there is a need anymore for a local centre for an additional copy of every job in town on a board, what you shuffle to the desk with a advisor, who then calls the employer for you, and then tells you what the employer said....

i think also that the budget for that has been merged with the general benefits system - which is not for job seeking. they are basically shedding the job ads bit - but not the benefit claims bit.

its a sensible move IMHO.

Spooky or what????............your new avatar is exactly how i've always imagined you look!

.................so is it you???????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bart of Darkness

Spooky or what????............your new avatar is exactly how i've always imagined you look!

.................so is it you???????

I thought the same about Fred's Lewis Collins avatar.

Surely that was the real Fred?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a typical, entirely predictable, response from the forum. Lose your job and consign yourself to oblivion with the State handout being your assured lifeline. The poor, wretched huddled masses trudging cap in hand to drink at the fountain of socialism's crowning glory, the public feeding trough of Britain's welfare state, the benefit office.

Jesus surely wept.

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world on planet reality most other folk look for alternative employment secure in the knowledge they have sole responsibility for their own lives.But, of course, the British disease disables such insight and our lumpen workers lurch forever onward happy in the self indulgent belief their self imposed indolence will be maintained by higher taxes paid by those unfortunate enough to keep their jobs.

However, looking on the bright side, the economic chaff may also lose their houses adding to the ever burgeoning sellers market.Always a good sign and particularly marked in the last crash when repos abounded.

Edited by deus ex machina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a typical, entirely predictable, response from the forum. Lose your job and consign yourself to oblivion with the State handout being your assured lifeline. The poor, wretched huddled masses trudging cap in hand to drink at the fountain of socialism's crowning glory, the public feeding trough of Britain's welfare state, the benefit office.

Jesus surely wept.

Meanwhile, in the rest of the world on planet reality most other folk look for alternative employment secure in the knowledge they have sole responsibility for their own lives.But, of course, the British disease disables such insight and our lumpen workers lurch forever onward happy in the self indulgent belief their self imposed indolence will be maintained by higher taxes paid by those unfortunate enough to keep their jobs.

However, looking on the bright side, the economic chaff may also lose their houses adding to the ever burgeoning sellers market.Always a good sign and particularly marked in the last crash when repos abounded.

What an entirely predictable response from you, Dues. Of course it's for people to look after themselves but if there are not enough jobs to go round the idea of a few unfortunate folk being helped out by everyone else is the sign of a decent society IMO. Just remember, it could be you one day.

Agreed though, there is a scrounging mindset among many, but IMO it is not as many as you suggest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.