Child poverty

[Mickey]

Its like talking about football and not mnetioning the players feet,,,, which in the case of Sheffield Wednesday is ok but for the other 91 clubs there is a bit of a problem

[Natalie]

I appear to have kicked the hornets nest but at least I now have some notion of the criterior used by politicians. I certainly know that there is genuine hardship out there such as Natalie describes but am I correct to assume that Natalie has no children sharing her roof, if this is the case maybe that is why she is struggling, there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that more children does generate more benefits.

 

It is a shame that the plight of genuine hardship cases has been 'hijacked' by others to further their own agenda, I hope Natalie and other genuine cases soon find a resolution.

 

No hard feelings tetleys. I just get so annoyed at the nonsense that is portrayed as the norm by the tabloid press. It most certainly is not and I am not alone. Hopefully giving the full sorry details of my situation (not something I am keen on revealing in all its 'glory' usually as I find it embarrassing and shameful- partly due to the attitude of the media- and that I am used to supporting myself and paying my way as I have done since I left school almost 30 years ago. I know I shouldn't feel this way but I do at times consider myself a failure) and has illustrated at least part of the reality of life in Britain today on benefits

 

As for children sharing my roof- as far as I am aware there are none- well there weren't last time I looked anyway- just a broken water pipe ;-( and some magazines...

 

The most annoying thing about all of this is that I am a Registered Nurse with almost 20 year's experience including an extended role (male catheters, advanced life support, suturing, IV drugs, blood taking, insertion of IV cannula- that sort of thing) yet am now being forced to apply for unqualified care worker jobs as potential employers are now considering that it was too long ago that I last worked. I am still registered on the Nursing and Midwifery Council as being qualified- something that I have to do each 12 months- it is due for renewal at the end of June, but unless I can obtain a qualified nurse job then I will be forced to deregister. To me this just seems like a huge waste of my training, skills and experience yet nurses are apparently in demand?

 

I don't know what the answer is but in the meantime I will work as a care worker as I do have the skills required for that and will manage with the fact that I shall get 50% of the wages that I can get qualified. Fortunately I can live frugally (am not a great eater- prob why I am now anaemic- don't smoke or drink and have no need or desire for all the latest technological devices..) so will adapt to what I get. As long as I can pay my bills and have some spare to enable some to be spent on the leisure activities that I enjoy- such as magazines, trips to Acton or Kew for research, that sort of thing. All being well I shall soon be working again (had some positive and encouraging news) so can see this living nightmare I am currently in coming to an end. Coupled with my iron and folic acid pills I should be raring to go and back to my old self!!

[NGT6 1315]

The most annoying thing about all of this is that I am a Registered Nurse with almost 20 year's experience including an extended role (male catheters, advanced life support, suturing, IV drugs, blood taking, insertion of IV cannula- that sort of thing) yet am now being forced to apply for unqualified care worker jobs as potential employers are now considering that it was too long ago that I last worked. I am still registered on the Nursing and Midwifery Council as being qualified- something that I have to do each 12 months- it is due for renewal at the end of June, but unless I can obtain a qualified nurse job then I will be forced to deregister. To me this just seems like a huge waste of my training, skills and experience yet nurses are apparently in demand?

 

That is a problem which also exists here in Germany, Natalie, due to what I see as similarly nonsensical rules and guidelines set for, and by, job centres, and which I can fully relate to you being dismayed about. I cannot say how it may be in the UK, but as there is a huge pressure for cost-efficiency in our health system - which I personally believe is further boosted by a strong trend towards privatisation of health care facilities, among other factors - , ignoring the fact that I believe you really cannot put a "one size fits all" template on much any ailment, there also is a correspondingly large pressure on wages.

 

But what I was meaning to say - I agree it is outrageous for qualified workers, who after all invested much time and effort into obtaining said qualifications, to be thrown into the "unskilled" pot, even though they most definitely are not. Sadly, much too little emphasis is being placed on maintaining qualifications during periods of unemployment, and too much of it on nonsensical training courses in an effort to polish up the unemployment statistics, which, too, have been mentioned further up in this thread.

[big jim]

Presumably poor children will usually have poor parents. Thus child poverty also means parental (ie adult) poverty.

 

i disagree with that, you would be surprised just how many kids i see outside our school when i drop our little un off who have half mast trousers, jumpers with holes, tatty shoes etc, even book bags with the ld school name on (it changed 4 years ago) while the parents drive brand new audi's, range rovers and dress in designer gear etc.

 

fur coat and no knickers

 

 

 

 

 

[62613]

But what I was meaning to say - I agree it is outrageous for qualified workers, who after all invested much time and effort into obtaining said qualifications, to be thrown into the "unskilled" pot, even though they most definitely are not. Sadly, much too little emphasis is being placed on maintaining qualifications during periods of unemployment, and too much of it on nonsensical training courses in an effort to polish up the unemployment statistics, which, too, have been mentioned further up in this thread.

 

Definitely agree with the first sentence; why should I (fully skilled CAD draughtsman) have to work 'unskilled at Jobcentre plus' whim?

Further on Jobcentre Plus and the whole 'jobseeking' thing; once you've been out of work for a while, you have to go on a Jobseeking Skills course, which in my case was a guy standing at the front of the room with a whiteboard, doing a Powerpoint presentation to a group saying 'Oh yeah?'

 

As for the new work programme. Does it create any new jobs? Except for the people running the courses, no.

 

Recently, a government minister said there was no shortage of jobs, it was just that people weren't willing to work. She said that there were 400,000 jobs posted at Jobcentre Plus every week; where does that leave the other 2.3million unemployed?

[Mickey]

Sorry I misread that.... you should want to work - no one is too good for any job

 

If anyone has that !im such and such, I'm too good for this then I would cut off any support and see how long their ego lasts for

[pete_mcfarlane]

She said that there were 400,000 jobs posted at Jobcentre Plus every week; where does that leave the other 2.3million unemployed?

I remember being made to look at that website when I was unemployed 3 years ago (they also provide terminals in the Jo Centre itself). Most of the jobs listed in the IT section were clerical jobs requiring basic PC skills. Pretty much a waste of time, though I suspect the problem is in part down to the employers who advertise on it.

 

 

I found that the staff we generally helpful, but the real problem with the Jobcentre is that is is geared up for the low paid unskilled/semi-skilled end of the job market. They may have vast numbers of jobs on their database, but they aren't necessarily the right jobs.

[Andy Y]

I remember being made to look at that website when I was unemployed 3 years ago (they also provide terminals in the Jo Centre itself). Most of the jobs listed in the IT section were clerical jobs requiring basic PC skills. Pretty much a waste of time, though I suspect the problem is in part down to the employers who advertise on it.

 

Having been in a similar position during last year Pete I can concur with respect to sales management roles. A good 75% of listings were nothing more than self-employed commission only jobs weasely worded to get around directives simply because it costs 'em nothing to spam every job advert system going. Suddenly even that 400,000 figure doesn't look very rosy. Of course you had to prove you'd looked there but even the more respectable alternatives are fluffed out with agencies placing speculative vacancies to farm CVs.

[Free At Last]

I found that the staff we generally helpful, but the real problem with the Jobcentre is that is is geared up for the low paid unskilled/semi-skilled end of the job market. They may have vast numbers of jobs on their database, but they aren't necessarily the right jobs.

 

Being in the contruction trade (Electrician), I have had a few periods of unemployment and have never found a job through the jobcentre.

The jobs they have for my trade pay less than the national agreed rate. In fact some of them are for someone wanting a job done and want to pay a man (stating must be self employed too) a low hourly rate for a couple of days instead of getting a company in to price for the job.

I am coming to the end of my working life and can't wait, seven months to go, should have been last June but for the change in the retirement age.

[Guest Natalie Graham]

A good 75% of listings were nothing more than self-employed commission only jobs weasely worded to get around directives simply because it costs 'em nothing to spam every job advert system going. Suddenly even that 400,000 figure doesn't look very rosy. Of course you had to prove you'd looked there but even the more respectable alternatives are fluffed out with agencies placing speculative vacancies to farm CVs.

 

Out of interest I just had a look at the jobcentre vacancies for where I live. It found 249. Only 12 were actual specific local jobs rather than self-employed, commission only, location 'National' things, or jobs which were completely out of the area, for example an 8 week job for an air conditioning engineer in Central London. OK, if you don't mind a 450 mile 9 hour commute. All but one job for a fish fryer at the chip shop required qualifications or experience which are unlikely to be held by the majority of those looking for work, specifically experienced chefs and degrees in social work. I would imagine a 'government spokesman' (or a Daily Mail journalist) might say the jobcentre had around 250 vacancies in my locality when the reality is that for the majority of potential applicants they effectively have one vacancy for a job in the chippy.

[Mickey]

Working in a chippy is a good grounding for work.....learn the trade and then buy or open one yourself

-

NOT talking about your position Natalie, but that to me is whats wrong with this country - The poverty of ambition, the "im too good for that" mentality...If they were too good for that they wouldnt be looking for summat to do...... bit like them clowns on TV wi Alan Sugar

[coachmann]

TV is the culprit....In every living room feeding folk with what is "correct" and making people feel unequal and worthless in a country that is less and less 'in touch' with familes that have lived here for countless generations.

 

Thankfully we were blissfully unaware that the education system of the 1950s had "let us down", that the 11-plus exam was "downright cruel" and so-on. Poverty of ambition was never in our vacabulary and so we "niavely" worked hard, climbed ladders and even created businesses. And this is the crux of the matter for me when people say we should 'equal' things out a bit by forcing those with money to pay more taxes. Penalising those who choose to work hard is playing into the hands of the really wealthy and the lifetime scroungers. It is the people that get thousands if not millions of £££'s bonuses on top extraordanary high wages that should be made to settle for far less. Never mind the feathernesting bullsh*t about having to pay high sums to attract the right people to run banks! I mean, how much money does one man need? And yet for years we have allowed financial institutions and multinationals to live off the backs of plain ordinary folk aided and abetted by the people we vote to represent us! If things are not right, it is our fault for not pulling together and making ourselves heard.

 

Crikey, my soapbox has just collapsed...

[skipepsi]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/08/free-school-meal-children-dont-feel-safe-at-home_n_1262067.html

[Guest Natalie Graham]

Working in a chippy is a good grounding for work.....learn the trade and then buy or open one yourself

-

NOT talking about your position Natalie, but that to me is whats wrong with this country - The poverty of ambition, the "im too good for that" mentality...If they were too good for that they wouldnt be looking for summat to do...... bit like them clowns on TV wi Alan Sugar

 

It is nothing to do with people thinking they are too good to do the job at the chippy. I am sure they will find an excellent candidate to fill the vacancy with no trouble at all and probably a number of people who would have liked it will end up disappointed. The point is that for all the jobcentre search produces 249 results for jobs in this area that is the only one that is a genuine local job which does not require specialist experience and/or qualifications. One job frying fish is not going to make much of a dent in the local unemployment rates, is it?

[royaloak]

Lets not forget that some people that would LOVE to work cant afford to take a low paid job because the wages they earn would not make up for the benefits they would lose and the costs of getting to work.

 

A good friend of mine has worked in the dockyard since leaving school (he is 42), he lives in a council house with his wife and 2 kids, he was recently made redundant (job cuts) and with the benefits he is entitled to he is only £50 a week worse off than when he worked. Every job he goes for would leave him worse off than the benefits he gets, and do you want to know something he HATES it with a vengeance, he has always worked, he loves to work but he simply cant afford to work. How the hell can that be, surely the benefits system should be set up that somebody should NEVER be worse off in a job than out of one. He would take a job that left him £10 a week better off than the benefits he gets now but there is simply nothing out there for him.

 

I am one of the first to moan about the job dodgers out there, but I DO realise that some people cannot afford to take the low paid jobs on offer.

[Catkins]

having read through most of this thread, I feel I should answer the posting -

"Child poverty" is not a new thing, but it is a phrase that is designed to grab headlines and take the moral high ground.

My mum has friends in Norfolk, one of whom used to be a headmistress in a primary school, and she commented that when families applied for free school meals she would go to their house and hold an informal interview with the family in question - the thing that struck her the most was the numbers who had satellite telly ( I can't spell sattelite, because I don't have it!)

I have seen, first hand, how there is a generation of benefit sponges who feel that working is something that they don't have to do. - In my previous employment (a job that I never enjoyed - but I have a work ethic) the company I worked for did try to recruit local people, but most of the 'applicants' said that they were better off on benefits. As a company we then recruited willing workers from Eastern Europe. I will admit that if I was offered the choice between doing a really 'crappy' job or a slightly better and more enjoyable job, then I'll take the latter anytime, but if the choice is 'crappy' job or no job/money, I'll take the former!!

 

Qualifications and education! - I have eight GCSE's at Grade C, the equal of the old CSE O level, I gained them when the grades went from A - G and ungraded, and BTEC-NVQ's were taken by the less academically agile, but still meant something (NVQ stood for National Vocational Qualification) most of the people who got NVQs when I was at school are intellegent and well rounded adults now! - It's the university students that are the more 2 dimensional now.

I believe that the education system is failing, and that is being manifest in the constant increasing of the top end of GCSE and A-Level grades (A** whats all that about? And does that mean my grade Cs are now Grade As? )

 

Benefits - There are some people who seem to think that "Maggie messed up the children" meaning those that are in their mid twenties, I'm in my mid thirties and Thanks to Maggie and my dad I have a work ethic - it is the younger generation that have been messed up by the policies of succesive governments since (and those policies have also led to this countries current financial situation) - a situation that has been commented on recently by someone slightly more famous than I.

Having seen what can happen when a person HAS to rely on benefits, I do not wish to deprive them of much needed income, in my opinion any person who has to claim due to a loss of employment or serious ill health should have their pre-claim average wage matched by the social security department.

 

I think I've ran out of steam now!

 

P.S. I want to know how the national average wage is worked out, and whos got the rest of my bit, 'cause I'm not earning the average!!

[Kelly]

Poverty very much exists. As also does victimisation against disabled people I've been noticing a lot of recently.

 

I live on benefits. I cannot work because of my health. But to look at me people would assume otherwise, because I have one of the 'invisible' illnesses that people cannot see. They cannot see the constant fatigue, the constant pain and other things. The only outward sign often is my walking stick. I've not as yet encountered any abuse directed at me personally, but a number of friends who are also disabled have, some quite severely.

 

The worst of it is before I got sick, I was about to go to university for a second time, to train to be a nurse. My previous university attempt (computing science) fell apart because of mental health troubles (severe depression) at the time. Now the likelihood of my ever returning to work is very slim indeed. Yet government benefits changes may well 'force' me to try to work, when I am not in any fit state to do so. The future looks a little worrying to say the least right now.

 

This government seems intent on attacking the needy and the poor at every opportunity. I recently wanted 'The Iron Lady', and it was a very good film. What was interesting was how it mirrored closely how this current government is behaving. No wonder David Cameron wanted to block it being made.

 

Except the 'enemy' isn't the trade unions, or the like. It is the disabled and the poor.

 

Life is a struggle for me, and it will continue to be so for likely the rest of my life as it isn't an illness you recover from, but as it is 'variable', disability benefits are very difficult to get as a result. I'm currently awaiting a tribunal hearing for my DLA claim. That appeal was started last March. The claim was started in October 2010!

 

I try to make the best of things I can. This is really why any plans I have to do any kind of modelling or building a layout are going to be 5-20 year projects, simply because its not possible financially otherwise. But buying small bits here and there i possible, and a small layout might be feasible when I finalise plans/research, etc.

[The Stationmaster]

The ground has changed a bit but the question of 'disablity' is an interesting one. There is no doubt that at one time the politicos were encouraging folk without jobs onto sickness benefit because it made the unemployment figures look better. But since then the idea seems to have taken off (has it again been encouraged I wonder?) and we have the highest percentage of people in Europe on sickness/ill-health related benefits. Clearly, on the basis of statistics alone, the system is either being abused or we have an incredibly 'sick' population - which hardly accords with what I see in the street. Again - like some other parts of the benefit system - I think it might all have become too easy.

 

When I took early retirement it was basically because of ill-health and the GP assured me that he would have no difficulty in getting me onto ill-health benefits, in fact I was in a far worse state of health than many he knew of who were on such benefits. I declined the offer, I wanted to carry on with work (preferably at a pace which suited me) and I had no financial need for a 'benefit' - but I could probably have got it, just like a neighbour (who my wife subsequently reported - successfully - for benefit fraud). Interestingly had I applied at that time for an Ill-Health pension from my pension fund there is no way I would have got it, I simply would not have been judged by them to be sufficiently impaired/ill to receive that benefit - even if I had got such a pension from the state! That was, perhaps, a reflection on the ease with which the state benefit could be obtained - a possible difference being that the pension fund was far more careful about the way in which its money was spent?

 

In my view the criteria should be simple - is the person fit enough to work, albeit not to do every kind of work, and are they fit enough to be able to get to & from a place of work, albeit with possibly some kind of travel assistance. It doesn't matter what the work is - the relevant words should be 'fit to work'.

 

Edit - correct typos

[Free At Last]

In my view the criteria should be simple - is the person fit enough to work, albeit not to do every kind of work, and are they fit enough to be able to get to & from a place of work, albeit with possibly some kind of travel assistance. It doesn't matter what the work is - the relevant words should be 'fit to work'.

 

Who would employ someone who claims they are unfit, like having a glass back, gets headaches or needs to have an hour rest every hour. They would be more of a liability.

[The Stationmaster]

 

Who would employ someone who claims they are unfit, like having a glass back, gets headaches or needs to have an hour rest every hour. They would be more of a liability.

This is another side of a coin that the politicos threw in the dustbin. At one time all employers with more than a stated number of employees were required to employ a minimum percentage of Registered Disabled Persons - known on the railway as 'Green Carders', and not just because of the association with cripple wagons but also because at one time RDPs had green National Insurance cards.

 

As for 'sorting' those with glass backs, perpetual headaches etc there has always been a very simple answer - get a proper medical opinion; I used to find it amazing how many had sudden recoveries when faced with, or during, a trip to the Medical Officer, especially when he asked them for a confirmatory letter from their own Doctor. It's all a simple part of what used to be called 'man management' but that was probably back in the days when we took an interest in our staff and their problems and foibles.

[coachmann]

Trade Unions are a good servant but a poor master and so it was Union members that squashed initiative and buggered up the workplace, not Governments. Non-Union companies were subject to Union-law in the most insidious and stifling way.

 

I worked at a non-Union firm building livestock trailers where all the other men were skilled but their skills were not required. The job of welding frames and assembling a livestock trailer was soon picked up and I ended up completing one every day in an 8 hour shift. The foremam saw the job cards and pointed my work out to the boss. He asked me why I was completing a box every day when the 'others' were taking 3 days. I told him I was struggling with a family to support and wanted a decent wage like them (I was on £11.50 a week and they were on £13.00). He gave me a rise but gave all the union men a raise also "to Maintain the differential". I told him I had not worked hard just to get "those malingering b*stards" a bloody rise.

 

He then told me the facts of life. Even though the mens skills were not required by his firm, he had to pay them more than me otherwise they would call in Union backing and stop the delivery of steel and timber! A few years later I went self-employed and watched from the sidelines as this country slid to its innevitable conclusion.

[gordon s]

Reading your post Coach, reminded me of the Peter Sellers film, 'I'm alright Jack'. Still an enjoyable watch.

[Guest dilbert]

The ground has changed a bit but the question of 'disablity' is an interesting one. There is no doubt that at one time the politicos were encouraging folk without jobs onto sickness benefit because it made the unemployment figures look better. But since then the idea seems to have taken off (has it again been encouraged I wonder?) and we have the highest percentage of people in Europe on sickness/ill-health related benefits. Clearly, on the basis of statistics alone, the system is either being abused or we have an incredibly 'sick' population - which hardly accords with what I see in the street. Again - like some other parts of the benefit system - I think it might all have become too easy.

...

In my view the criteria should be simple - is the person fit enough to work, albeit not to do every kind of work, and are they fit enough to be able to get to & from a place of work, albeit with possibly some kind of travel assistance. It doesn't matter what the work is - the relevant words should be 'fit to work'.

 

You raise a valid point about 'disability'. A few kms from were I live there is a recycling plant. Every workday morning a couple of coachloads of workers are dropped off about 2kms from the plant - they have to walk the remaining distance to get to work, regardless of weather conditions. These people are what (for want for a better word), 'simpletons' - some have Down syndrome. Most are in the 20-40 yr age range and are dependent on their parents.

 

They have what we may consider a crap job, but they generally appear to be happy and also believe that they are contributing to society, whilst the parents have a few hours relief in their own lives... dilbert

[Guest Max Stafford]

A crap job it may be, but if I had the choice, I'd feel better doing that than hanging about waiting for a state handout.

Unfortunately, I think that viewpoint is abused by cynical employers and a government who's basic ideology is dictated by faceless people in The City.

 

Dave.

[Mike Bellamy]

Look at all the industries which have increased profitability by drastically cutting the number of people they employ, meaning that those who keep their jobs can enjoy higher levels of income while those who are no longer required have to live on much less. If instead of reducing the number of employees those businesses had shared out the hours among all their workers income levels would be more equitable but the incomes of those now in work would be lower. How many people in work would support a cut in the working week of say 15% along with the corresponding reduction in income in order to create jobs for those who are unemployed?

I'm a bit late picking up on this comment, but there were two local examples of this recently. Toyota cut all their workers hours and pay by 10% two years ago but have recently announced that the Burnaston Plant is to produce a new model creating 1500 jobs. Down the road at JCB, their staff also had hours and pay reduced, and were recently 'rewarded' by a 5% rise and a £500 bonus. Looking back at the local newspaper reports, in both cases these reductions were supported by the Unions - better to be in a job with hope for the future than unemployed and trying to find work.