I believe it is "making slave labour available for free to friends of government will cause more paying jobs to appear, somehow - and since this is unpaid labour and not employment, it still counts as using up your time on unemployment and the government 'pays' you out of the unemployment insurance fund while you work for them and their close personal friends"
Having poked the website (http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/services/work_dole.htm) briefly now, they get a whole $20.80 more a week for working for their benefits. And it's optional unless you are a "longterm job seeker".
But I have no idea as to what the 'placements' actually involve etc.
It's a sap to all those people blustering about the 'lazy bums just lounging around on tax payer dollars'.
I volunteered to clean up a section of the park along the canal with some friends once. One of us was taking a break, sitting down on the steps for a minute, and an older woman came by and made it clear she was hideously unimpressed.
"I suppose they pay you to sit around?"
"No, they pay me to run an office. I volunteer my spare time to make this park nice for people like you."
Where does it say you have to apply for 14 positions a week? i know you had to do something similar under australin benefits but there is not enough infomraiton in this article to make this assumpltion that they are doing that there.
this is an uber short article, bereft of information, and everyone has jumped to a bunch of conclusions on what it means and have started bagging it. I would like to see more before bagging it. It has potential for abuse but also potential for good.
For example; according to the article, they dont stop getting benefits, its a max of 30 hours a week, and it's only for a maxium of four weeks. it says 'recommended by' and not 'mandatory' too. it also mentions 9 or 10 years as an example of 'long term'. ten years is a long time to be subsidised to not work. Just saying...
The problem comes in the abuse by rules and regs from the blanket admin, which ,as in this post, a bunch of people have frustrated and upset expereinces with work_for_dole schemes.
I was long term unemployed and i'd have liked to have gotten onto this scheme, at the time i was unemplyed i desperatley wanted a chance to get into doing something/anything.
i was actually booked in to learn to drive a forklift at the point i got a full time job.
I wish i had my forklift liscence, that would be hella cool.
i know you had to do something similar under australian benefits
... which is what I was replying to, the comment about Austrlian one.
I was long term unemployed Much water has passed under the bridge - the situation is even more paper and stupid rule bound after 11 years of Commandant Back-to-the-50s
The inherent problem with work for the dole schemes as far as I can tell is that in order to make the placements accessible across the board, the type of work you are likely to be doing is unlikely to assist you in getting a job. And hence people resent the system.
Unsure what's happening in that regard though, given that news was the same day as the major earthquake, leaving a lot of people's job/business future a lot less certain.
I was thinking it would be detrimental to the NZ Nat Party's public image to try and push that through right now. And regardless of their policies, they are not doubt aware of public image at least. *shakes head*
The cynic in me says that if they are increasing the the proportion of beneficiaries presently subjected to work testing from 37 per cent to 77 per cent, then surely they've just created some jobs that they should hire some of these job seekers to do...
Okay, how did I miss that little bit of news? That's retarded. We have different types of benefits for different situations here for a reason.
"a target of cutting benefit numbers by 100,000 between 2013/14 - when it would begin operating - and 2021"
Ohh, this would do that, all right. Not that there are anywhere near that many jobs in the market that will be appropriate for.. and/or accept people who're on the benefit. This would just kick people off the benefit for not complying with even more shitty bureaucracy than we already have. A fucking brilliant idea!
Ohh yeah, that thing. That explains that. National uses supervillain technology to distract Kiwis from impending shitty legislature! That'd be a great headline. I should suggest it to the student magazine.
having been forced onto 'work for the dole' some years back, it works like this:
if you come up as 'eligible' on the centrelink life control computer system, then you have to pop along to the *designated* centrelink office (which may not be geographically convenient for you, but will be administratively convenient for /someone/).
there you will experience a meeting with a centrelink officer. the usual pattern goes something like:
you've not got a job yet, so our system has designated you as a *useless dolebludger*.
consequently, you are being given this wonderful opportunity to get out and *do* something to 'earn' your below-the-poverty-line benefit.
this 'opportunity' is compulsory unless you have a *really* good reason: like you're dying of cancer and are currently attached to medical equipment that won't fit out the front door - though that would mean you'll likely miss the 'meeting' - more on *that* in a sec)
failing to attend the meeting, for anything short of being dead, usually leads to an 'administrative penalty' - aka your payments are 'suspended' for a number of weeks. miss the gig, and you miss dinner.
having 'accepted' the non-voluntary program, you get told to start reporting to x co, or y inc from 830 am on monday (if you're lucky, someone thinks to throw you a pair of boots on your way out)
once you start at x co or y inc, you have to trot along everyday like all the paid guys, only you're not getting paid, and do what you're told to do ... because being the guy doing the shitwork for people on three to five times your take home *really* motivates ...
oh, and you're usually excused from having to apply for 2-10 random jobs every week while you're enjoying this experience.
but, if your boss don't like you, or you fail to show up for some reason they don't like, and so on, well they can complain to centrelink - and it's 'administrative penalty' time. no money. *and* you go back to being 'eligible' all over again.
my placement: lackey for office manager.
placements are unskilled labour, so 'anyone' can do them. no regard for your work history, education, or circumstances. or it's impact on your job prospects. (office lackey isn't taken seriously, and isn't invited to lunch with the real humans.)
i was my son's primary carer at the time. so for three months my life was child to childcare we couldn't afford; go to 'work' for 8 hours; child from childcare we couldn't afford; help feed everyone, somehow; try to write applications for *anything* i could find to apply for ... applications i had to find time to type up at 'work' ... etc.
by-the-by, if you get a 'real' interview for a 'real' job, you are allowed time off to attend. and apply i did. for *anything* i might vaguely have a chance at. even tax law (i have *no* background in tax law).
but my 'current situation' meant cheap suit, rushed prep, and hard-to-explain 'what have you done since law school'.
having been a 'victim' of this 'work for the dole' scheme, i can assure you it is crap. i wasted 26 weeks doing something that garnered me absolutely zero in the way of "useful skills to enable to me to be better prepared for re-introduction to the workforce" (or whatever the rhetoric is). the extra 20bucks barely covers one week of public transport use to get to wherever you're forced to go.
there has been absolutely no evidence to support that it has been at all successful.
it took her a veeeery long time to convince them that as a single mother with a disabled child on the Protected register, it would be quite a lot wiser [and cheaper] for them to let her finish the college course she was on, then get a real job.
it ended up with 3 people from the JobCentre going to a meeting on her behalf and telling their superiors to stop being fucking retarded.
My first reaction to this is 'why was she getting an Unemployment Benefit'? Surly there are other more appropriate forms of state support for this situation? Ones not subject to requirements to job hunting etc?
because the Jobcentre staff advised her against accepting a student loan due to the costs involved of raising our daughter. It would have been financially impossible. They instead arranged for her to continue receiving benefits. In her last term, even though this arrangement was clearly indicated on her file, she was taken in for interviews every two weeks to 'review her situation'.
She also held down a part time job. I supported her as much as was possible. Among other options the JC tried to foist upon her was Nursing - which involved double and night shifts. As a single mother, with a child that, at minimum, required specialist care costing more per hour than nurses get paid.
and before you ask, no I couldn't look after her. That's a whole different story.
I'm only just realising how complicated that was. hmmm.
or worse, people are forced to do jobs for free that no one was willing to do for the wages being offered (because the wages were shit, and/or the job was shit) - so instead of improving work conditions, they are driven *down* ...
also, employers cotton on to the fact that if they sign up for the scheme, they don't have to pay recruitment costs - or wages ...
I'm confident that he does realise how silly the idea is. The Big Society is likely little more than a bunch of smoke and mirrors to cover the most aggressive program of privatisation and public cuts in recent British history, and any debate about said smoke and mirrors distracts from that ideological agenda. By the time that it's *proven* this ridiculous idea won't work, public services and benefits will be decimated and the private sector (or some PFI-esque hybrid) will have 'picked up the slack'.
Nationalisation is a hell of a lot harder than privatisation in today's world so it's all about taking action and distracting from it until it's too late.
How I would love to be wrong. Heh. Not that it's likely, as the Tories don't exactly have a good track record for helping society's most vulnerable. I'm not sure they have a track record at all; they were probably too busy chortling over cigars and port to compete.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-16 07:55 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-16 08:02 pm (UTC)*headdesk*
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-16 08:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-16 08:09 pm (UTC)I mean, that's my best guess.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-16 08:35 pm (UTC)But I have no idea as to what the 'placements' actually involve etc.
It's a sap to all those people blustering about the 'lazy bums just lounging around on tax payer dollars'.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-19 01:18 am (UTC)I volunteered to clean up a section of the park along the canal with some friends once. One of us was taking a break, sitting down on the steps for a minute, and an older woman came by and made it clear she was hideously unimpressed. *shrug* Just came to mind.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 05:07 am (UTC)While also demanding you apply for 14 positions a week.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 06:41 am (UTC)this is an uber short article, bereft of information, and everyone has jumped to a bunch of conclusions on what it means and have started bagging it. I would like to see more before bagging it. It has potential for abuse but also potential for good.
For example; according to the article, they dont stop getting benefits, its a max of 30 hours a week, and it's only for a maxium of four weeks.
it says 'recommended by' and not 'mandatory' too.
it also mentions 9 or 10 years as an example of 'long term'.
ten years is a long time to be subsidised to not work.
Just saying...
The problem comes in the abuse by rules and regs from the blanket admin, which ,as in this post, a bunch of people have frustrated and upset expereinces with work_for_dole schemes.
I was long term unemployed and i'd have liked to have gotten onto this scheme, at the time i was unemplyed i desperatley wanted a chance to get into doing something/anything.
i was actually booked in to learn to drive a forklift at the point i got a full time job.
I wish i had my forklift liscence, that would be hella cool.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 07:53 am (UTC)... which is what I was replying to, the comment about Austrlian one.
I was long term unemployed
Much water has passed under the bridge - the situation is even more paper and stupid rule bound after 11 years of Commandant Back-to-the-50s
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 09:09 pm (UTC)And hence people resent the system.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 09:05 pm (UTC)I have a feeling that you might be exempt from the job applications whilst in a placement but am unsure.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-16 08:29 pm (UTC)http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/4687905/Jobless-told-to-work-or-lose-dole
Unsure what's happening in that regard though, given that news was the same day as the major earthquake, leaving a lot of people's job/business future a lot less certain.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-16 08:45 pm (UTC)*shakes head*
The cynic in me says that if they are increasing the the proportion of beneficiaries presently subjected to work testing from 37 per cent to 77 per cent, then surely they've just created some jobs that they should hire some of these job seekers to do...
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 12:58 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 05:23 am (UTC)"a target of cutting benefit numbers by 100,000 between 2013/14 - when it would begin operating - and 2021"
Ohh, this would do that, all right. Not that there are anywhere near that many jobs in the market that will be appropriate for.. and/or accept people who're on the benefit. This would just kick people off the benefit for not complying with even more shitty bureaucracy than we already have. A fucking brilliant idea!
Fuck National. Fucking bastards.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 05:28 am (UTC)I think the massive earthquake that happened an hour after the article was posted might have been a little distracting. I know it was down here :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 05:32 am (UTC)bile and vitriol included
Date: 2011-03-17 12:51 am (UTC)if you come up as 'eligible' on the centrelink life control computer system,
then you have to pop along to the *designated* centrelink office (which may not be geographically convenient for you, but will be administratively convenient for /someone/).
there you will experience a meeting with a centrelink officer. the usual pattern goes something like:
once you start at x co or y inc, you have to trot along everyday like all the paid guys, only you're not getting paid, and do what you're told to do ... because being the guy doing the shitwork for people on three to five times your take home *really* motivates ...
oh, and you're usually excused from having to apply for 2-10 random jobs every week while you're enjoying this experience.
but, if your boss don't like you, or you fail to show up for some reason they don't like, and so on, well they can complain to centrelink - and it's 'administrative penalty' time. no money. *and* you go back to being 'eligible' all over again.
my placement: lackey for office manager.
placements are unskilled labour, so 'anyone' can do them. no regard for your work history, education, or circumstances. or it's impact on your job prospects. (office lackey isn't taken seriously, and isn't invited to lunch with the real humans.)
i was my son's primary carer at the time. so for three months my life was child to childcare we couldn't afford; go to 'work' for 8 hours; child from childcare we couldn't afford; help feed everyone, somehow; try to write applications for *anything* i could find to apply for ... applications i had to find time to type up at 'work' ... etc.
by-the-by, if you get a 'real' interview for a 'real' job, you are allowed time off to attend. and apply i did. for *anything* i might vaguely have a chance at. even tax law (i have *no* background in tax law).
but my 'current situation' meant cheap suit, rushed prep, and hard-to-explain 'what have you done since law school'.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-18 12:41 am (UTC)there has been absolutely no evidence to support that it has been at all successful.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-16 09:36 pm (UTC)it took her a veeeery long time to convince them that as a single mother with a disabled child on the Protected register, it would be quite a lot wiser [and cheaper] for them to let her finish the college course she was on, then get a real job.
it ended up with 3 people from the JobCentre going to a meeting on her behalf and telling their superiors to stop being fucking retarded.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 01:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 01:45 am (UTC)because the Jobcentre staff advised her against accepting a student loan due to the costs involved of raising our daughter. It would have been financially impossible. They instead arranged for her to continue receiving benefits. In her last term, even though this arrangement was clearly indicated on her file, she was taken in for interviews every two weeks to 'review her situation'.
She also held down a part time job. I supported her as much as was possible.
Among other options the JC tried to foist upon her was Nursing - which involved double and night shifts. As a single mother, with a child that, at minimum, required specialist care costing more per hour than nurses get paid.
and before you ask, no I couldn't look after her. That's a whole different story.
I'm only just realising how complicated that was. hmmm.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-16 11:00 pm (UTC)So now you can have a street sweeper, he's sacked under the Tory cuts, goes unemployed and then gets forced to do his old job - for no money!
Unemployment goes up because jobs are being filled by unpaid unemployed
Typical. Tories
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 12:05 am (UTC)or worse, people are forced to do jobs for free that no one was willing to do for the wages being offered (because the wages were shit, and/or the job was shit) - so instead of improving work conditions, they are driven *down* ...
also, employers cotton on to the fact that if they sign up for the scheme, they don't have to pay recruitment costs - or wages ...
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 01:48 am (UTC)at some point, I continue to hope, even *he* will realise just how utterly fucking stupid this is.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 01:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 11:15 am (UTC)Nationalisation is a hell of a lot harder than privatisation in today's world so it's all about taking action and distracting from it until it's too late.
How I would love to be wrong. Heh. Not that it's likely, as the Tories don't exactly have a good track record for helping society's most vulnerable. I'm not sure they have a track record at all; they were probably too busy chortling over cigars and port to compete.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 11:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 01:21 am (UTC)There is rapelling and a car chase.
(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-17 09:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2011-03-21 04:24 pm (UTC)