Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

reds8n wrote:... I'm sure you have lofty ideals.

Even if, alas, we cannot apparently believe you.

Very good, I'm doffing the proverbial bowler as we speak.

Mr. Burning wrote:


I have had the misfortune to be unemployed twice in my working life. Luckily I wanted to work so found myself out of the situation PDQ!

From my experiences its those running and employed to work in Jobcentres that are eqully as bad as those workshy claimants on the scrounge. Walk into any jobcentre and smell the apathy emanating from the ever present groups of idle staff.
One of my experiences with them was this:
5 interviews in 31/2 days, one across country. They moaned and sought 'advice' from another member of staff when I had filled in my jobsearch form incorrectly (back to front). They argued that I should fill in a new form, in the right order. This, after the guy in front, who couldnt explain why he hasnt attended his designated signing day or looked for work, had his claim signed of for his dole.

What The Feth! (belive me this wasnt isolated.)

You have a group of staff who have a 'job for life'+ benefits (in governemnt service) without any real targets, who just clock in and out and do the bare minimum expected. It's no wonder the social gets scammed.

Yeah when I first left the service I went to the job centre. I didnt get the dole because I had ample savings, but I went into the JC just for a crack. I was told by the RM on my resettlement that they were gak at their jobs and you basically needed to just apply for stuff yourself and stand on your own two feet, expecting little if any assistance, but I still went in to see for myself.

I concur though, the staff seemed to be utterly uninterested.

How could you solve this though? I mean, you cant give them targets, have you seen the fethers they deal with?

And no wonder they are despondent, 90% of the people in there have no intention of working. It was a grey souless place and Im glad I never had to go back in! If I lost my current job I wouldnt go back either. You dont need the help that they give you anyway.

The point is, the systems broken, and feth knows how to fix it.

Oh I know, cancel the dole and let people starve to death. Then the only people who go to the JC will be real job seekers, not people going for their tick in the box to keep the wellfare coming.

I am aware that it is the 'smart' thing to do in those cases.

It's also the scummiest thing somebody can do. If you can work, get your arse out there.

Why the feth should anybody have to subsidise laziness?

(I'm not talking about genuine disabled/people with mental health conditions, before somebody chimes in)

The benefits to the unemployed need slashed to minimum levels.

I hate the fact that these people's heads are kept above the water, they should be left to drown in their own inadequacy.

There was a story on the BBC website that said 97% of disabled people on benefits could work.

Damn straight! The lass in my local is on disablity for being "bi polar" but she is just a silly bastard. She is mid 30's and physically fit, and she is on the piss 7 days a week. Ive literallty never been in there and she isnt at the bar. We have some great arguments.

Last week she actually said to me "Under the labour party I had my disability for life, but now the Tories are being spankers, and they are making me do a medical every 5 years and do loads of paperwork, and its stressful!"

"not as stressful as going to work though eh?"

"No..."

remilia_scarlet wrote:I agree, last thing I want to do is pay for someone else's habits. These days, more and more people are getting on government assistance that don't even need it, so, it's becoming a burden on the government. I have this neighbor, who's 23, perfecly capable of working, but is on disability for ADD. He does nothing but play second life all day, and spends money on that game, so, in short, we're paying for his habits.

That pisses me off that he even got SSI, probably general assistance too. I have epilepsy and it got really bad in the last year and a half, to the point that working would be impossible. I filed for disability, hopefully for a short term basis and its a nightmare to get. Pretty sad that even someone who has a legit health problem can't get the help they need but someone who is full of gak can. People who have successfully taken advantage of the system, get free housing and food. Turn around and do drugs and still get a check? I've always worked and went to school steadily until recently and I've had to take drugs test so why shouldn't they?

Spartan 117 wrote:NO!!!!!!!!!!!
If they are drug attic then why should they get welfare! If we can get an idea of what attics will spend their money on then they dont deserve my hard earned money. You should see where I lie on the political spectrum...........

OK, first off, 'addict.' An attic is where you keep your old furniture. Secondly -- 'If we can get an idea of what attics will spend their money on then they dont deserve my hard earned money' -- this is saying that they don't deserve money if the government finds out what they're spending it on. So if they manage to keep it a secret, it's gravy? I'm sure that's not what you meant. I appreciate your passion on this issue, but your opinion will be a lot more convincing if you put a little more care into the presentation of your post. And for what it's worth, I agree with you that drug testing for welfare is no bad thing.

The sad thing is, I bet that woman is a fairly common example of people who sponge the benefits system.

You should give her a gentle nudge into the path of an oncoming vehicle the next time you're leaving...

She tripped officer, it's a tragic tale... really it is...

XCom wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote:I agree, last thing I want to do is pay for someone else's habits. These days, more and more people are getting on government assistance that don't even need it, so, it's becoming a burden on the government. I have this neighbor, who's 23, perfecly capable of working, but is on disability for ADD. He does nothing but play second life all day, and spends money on that game, so, in short, we're paying for his habits.

That pisses me off that he even got SSI, probably general assistance too. I have epilepsy and it got really bad in the last year and a half, to the point that working would be impossible. I filed for disability, hopefully for a short term basis and its a nightmare to get. Pretty sad that even someone who has a legit health problem can't get the help they need but someone who is full of gak can. People who have successfully taken advantage of the system, get free housing and food. Turn around and do drugs and still get a check? I've always worked and went to school steadily until recently and I've had to take drugs test so why shouldn't they?

SSI isn't for short term disability. Has to last at least twelve months (or be expected to last that long).

But as always, the best advice is to get a lawyer, get as much medical treatment as you can, and be able to document everything about your condition.

The way I see it, is if someone actually needs DHS or its equivalent to help buy groceries and help with housing, then yea, drug testing is mandatory, infact Id say its mandatory every 6 months. If you can afford to dump money on marijuana or more hardcore (=more expensive) drugs, then you could have afforded your food if you didnt smoke/inject that gak up.

So drug test welfare recipients even though it cost taxpayers more money?

Ive been in the DHS a few times in my life, trust me, they would save ALOT more money doing that, and dumping people that cant NOT fail the tests, then just continuing to pay them hundreds every month in money

KingCracker wrote:Ive been in the DHS a few times in my life, trust me, they would save ALOT more money doing that, and dumping people that cant NOT fail the tests, then just continuing to pay them hundreds every month in money

I'm just curious, when those individuals with drug addictions/habits get kicked off social assistance and end up incarcerated, who's paying for that? Is it cheaper or more expensive now?

Crablezworth wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Ive been in the DHS a few times in my life, trust me, they would save ALOT more money doing that, and dumping people that cant NOT fail the tests, then just continuing to pay them hundreds every month in money

I'm just curious, when those individuals with drug addictions/habits get kicked off social assistance and end up incarcerated, who's paying for that? Is it cheaper or more expensive now?

I propose a third option to welfare or incarcerations: get a job.

And with unemployment at 9% that sounds like a completely realistic expectation.

Even at 9% there are jobs out there. They might not pay as much as a person's previous job or they may be overqualified for the position but the classified ads are full of jobs each week. If a person wants to work, they'll work. If they want to look for a handout instead, guess what?

I was listening to NPR this morning and one of the reasons they said the unemployment rate fell recently is because people just gave up looking for work. I was thinking "what?" who can just give up looking for work? Get off your duff and work at McDs until something better comes along. Geez.

Such people are little better than some of my former clients that complained about lack of employment opportunities and scoffed when I copied sections of the help-wanted ads, "I'm not going to work there!". I hauled out a calculator and tallied up the potential earnings of a call center or fast food restaurant or other job and showed them it was more than welfare. Still didn't help.

As to incarceration. Drug tests will not be used to incarcerate people; it's not social service agencies' responsibility to police society. The tests would just be used to deny benefits to a segment of the population that has been proven to abuse the system to support their habit/lifestyle. Drug testing is an inexpensive process that is alreay in use for TANF recipients and will result in less abuse of the system. This means more benefits to the people that actually will use the system for the purpose it was intended; a short-term assistance program that will assist families and individuals through a rough patch in their lives and on to a better future.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-28/mcdonald-s-hires-62-000-during-national-event-24-more-than-planned.html

McDonald's recieved over a million applications for 50,000 jobs.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are not as many jobs, even bad ones, as you think.

http://www.economytrack.org/jobopening.php

There are still over four job seekers per opening.

that means if every job opening were filled, three out of four people actively looking for work would have literally no openings to fill.

Sorry, "Get a job" simply isn't viable advice.

Crablezworth wrote:And with unemployment at 9% that sounds like a completely realistic expectation.

Ah yes, there are no jobs available anywhere.

Polonius wrote:Sorry, "Get a job" simply isn't viable advice.

Not in 100% of cases, maybe not.

I refuse to believe that every single person who is on the dole is completely incapable of getting a job for whatever reason. And if one out of every four people, since that's the number that your data came up with, got a job wouldn't that drastically improve the situation?

Well, in the end, if you aren't guilty, you don't need to worry avout the test, since it'll come up negative.

Monster Rain wrote:

Polonius wrote:Sorry, "Get a job" simply isn't viable advice.

Not in 100% of cases, maybe not.

I refuse to believe that every single person who is on the dole is incapable of getting a job for whatever reason.

Incapable of actually performing a job, or incapable of actually getting a job?

Sure, some people turn down opportunities to work to stay on benefits. Those jobs are immediately filled by somebody that wants to work.

I mean, we can wring our hands about how people would rather collect benefits than work, or we can face the reality that there are milliions of people that want to work but can't find a job. It's like yelling at the guy that didn't bring beer to the party when nobody is drinking what's already there: it's disrespectful, but has no actual harm.

Crablezworth wrote:

KingCracker wrote:Ive been in the DHS a few times in my life, trust me, they would save ALOT more money doing that, and dumping people that cant NOT fail the tests, then just continuing to pay them hundreds every month in money

I'm just curious, when those individuals with drug addictions/habits get kicked off social assistance and end up incarcerated, who's paying for that? Is it cheaper or more expensive now?

That's an obvious point, I mean, essentially in the US/UK aren't we just bribing people to be good? Were basically paying them and hoping they keep out of our way.

The career dole wallers in the UK are just horrible, foul smelling, foul mouthed...er... foul people.

If we didn't give them free money for fags and cans, they would just steal their cans and mug people for fags, so, Its true what your saying, but I merely reply with "feth em"

feth em. Lets send them all to jail, we can make that cheaper by making them live 8 in a cell instead of 1 or 2 now. In fact, we could make them live in enormous dorms, give them only two meals a day, and only water to drink, and we could halve the amount of guards so they can stab each other and such with rare gusto! What do nice people care if scum kill each other?

On that note, why do we have knife amnesty's? We should be encouraging low lives to kill each other! I propose we start a leaflet campaign "BLADES R KEWL" or "BITCHES LUV A KILLA" and issue all children who are the product of a union between two doleys with sharp knives on their 6th Birthday. Then we can mail them a violent DVD every birthday until the age of 16 and they will (all being well) cull each other with no assistance required. Saving the tax payers literally millions. Say only 10000 kill each other in the first year, 10000 less people claiming dole from the age of 16-65, has to run into a staggering figure.

I should be in charge, id save us fething billions!

mattyrm wrote: I should be in charge, id save us fething billions!

Well, until the global economic sanctions kick in due to human rights abuses.

This thread has contributed to my loss in my faith in humanity.

Polonius wrote:I mean, we can wring our hands about how people would rather collect benefits than work, or we can face the reality that there are milliions of people that want to work but can't find a job. It's like yelling at the guy that didn't bring beer to the party when nobody is drinking what's already there: it's disrespectful, but has no actual harm.

Fair enough.

The problems run much deeper than drug testing and welfare, and I don't think Dakka is going to solve them. As I said before, in principle I agree with the sentiment behind the drug testing policy but without other massive economic reforms I don't really see the point of it.

Monster Rain wrote:

Polonius wrote:I mean, we can wring our hands about how people would rather collect benefits than work, or we can face the reality that there are milliions of people that want to work but can't find a job. It's like yelling at the guy that didn't bring beer to the party when nobody is drinking what's already there: it's disrespectful, but has no actual harm.

Fair enough.

The problems run much deeper than drug testing and welfare, and I don't think Dakka is going to solve them. As I said before, in principle I agree with the sentiment behind the drug testing policy but without other massive economic reforms I don't really see the point of it.

That's my point. We could spend a fortune training people to do jobs, except there are skilled workers sitting on their hands already. We could give them make work assignments, but that seldom accomplishes much and generally incurs yet more expense in oversight. We could imprison them, which just seems messy. Or we could hand out enough cash to get wasted and not rob people.

Polonius wrote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-28/mcdonald-s-hires-62-000-during-national-event-24-more-than-planned.html

McDonald's recieved over a million applications for 50,000 jobs.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there are not as many jobs, even bad ones, as you think.

http://www.economytrack.org/jobopening.php

There are still over four job seekers per opening.

that means if every job opening were filled, three out of four people actively looking for work would have literally no openings to fill.

Sorry, "Get a job" simply isn't viable advice.

I think this is one of the situations where YMMV depending on where you live and are working. Here in Oklahoma, the Sunday want-ads are consistently brimming with open positions in a number of fields and they are there each week so obviously they aren't being filled. I drive down the street and seet help wanted signs in the windows of many businesses. Granted most of these jobs involve manual labor and/or are entry level but....

I would not want to be living in the northern part of the US or in the NE right now but here in the midwest there is work to be found nearly everywhere.

Polonius wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I should be in charge, id save us fething billions!

Well, until the global economic sanctions kick in due to human rights abuses.

Curse those darned pinko's with their due process!

Polonius wrote:that means if every job opening were filled, three out of four people actively looking for work would have literally no openings to fill.

I feel like there is a porn joke here just waiting to get out.

Accidentally voted hell yes, please disregard one of those votes...

If I couldn't even get a job at mcdonalds I could see myself selling drugs on a corner.

Crablezworth wrote:If I couldn't even get a job at mcdonalds I could see myself selling drugs on a corner.

You'd probably make more money and have a better retirement.