Tips For The Unemployed – Who You Know Vs What You Know

I have often wondered whether ‘who you know’ rather than ‘what you know’, helps people get on in life.

Nepotism, face fits scenario, utilising your networks and calling in favours doesn’t harm when it comes to applying for work for example.

Yet, this hidden ‘who you know’ isn’t something people are comfortable talking about openly, and I’m not surprised considering it is an unregulated form of discrimination (in my opinion).

Sometimes being intelligent, educated, experienced, interested, capable, innovative, and so on and so, isn’t enough. Well, not unless you happen to be best friends with the boss too. Cynical, maybe, but also true!

Surely I’m not the only one who has experienced an employer telling them that their application or CV has been unsuccessful………..no, I didn’t think so. It might then leave you wondering why, especially when you tick all the boxes they require. You might contact the employer and ask, why, but their response is vague and somewhat generic.

Of course we can’t all be successful in every application we make, but I know employers do favour employees they know either directly or indirectly. How do I know? I have worked in enough places, and with enough people to have witnessed this happening, albeit discreetly.

This ‘who you know’ is apparent if you look a little closer. Just because a job is advertised to the public, doesn’t mean it is available to the public. Any job is only advertised because it is considered a breech of equal opportunities otherwise. Not to forget the job vacancies that are only ever advertised internally within a company; consequently the ordinary Joe or Josephine Bloggs never has the chance to apply.

This I feel is a loss, not only for the prospective employee, but the employer, their business and their staff.

There is so much untapped, under utilised and unrealised potential going stagnant in the jobs market. Potential that could add a missing element to a company. It seems some employers aren’t willing to actually change their recruitment processes though. Refusal to take a chance, broaden their opinions and think outside of their box (which I will discuss later), might make their business less innovative in the long run. Another fact is that most employers haven’t a clue about recruitment either, and often outsource this aspect to the dreaded employment agency (which I will also discuss later).

There also remains two main hurdles which employers like to place in the way of job seekers; work experience or lack of and qualifications or a lack of. The frustration of can’t get a job because you lack experience, but can’t get experience without a job is still a parody most job seekers face. Which is bizarre in the current situation of mass unemployment! The same frustrations are also linked to qualifications. Either you need them, as on the job training is practically non existent or no sooner are you qualified, you then have to retrain to be au fait with the next big thing. In either position, need training or need retraining finding a suitable job can seem like an almost uphill struggle.

Do employers expect perfection; someone they know, all the right qualifications and experience and everything else they may require on a nice silver platter? No, I don’t think they do, but I’m not sure they always know what they want or know good job candidates when they see them! This is when the ‘who you know’ does defiantly come up trumps over any other prerequisite; it helps to have help from an insider to overcome the hurdles.

As I have mentioned already, I have worked in my fair share of places. I have gained plenty of transferable skills, expertise, experience and qualifications, including a university degree; yet I often find I struggle to really fit into the employment market. Am I a community development officer, a charity fundraiser, a volunteer manager, a PA, a tutor, a counsellor, an employment adviser, a researcher, a writer, an artist, a life coach? Well maybe! Yet in reality I don’t fit into any one of these categories 100% even though I have gained the relevant qualifications, and so on and so on to do these type of jobs.

This is where the employer and their boxes come into play. If you don’t fit into their narrow ideal and required person specification, then basically you might as well never have gained any qualifications or experience (regardless of how bright and dynamic you might be). What I mean is, there is little flexibility or thinking outside of the box! Recruitment is so staid! This is where the employment agencies fall down in their so called recruitment role too.

Employment agencies have a bank of regular temps they call upon to apply for any of the new job vacancies they have on offer. These new vacancies are passed on from businesses to the agency; most businesses want to save money by advertising work and screening potential applicants via the agency. The problem is that all agencies only deal in specific employment sectors, and deal only with specific skills for specific jobs. So for example; a secretary is required and your job title has always been business admin, and your CV reflects this, the agency can’t see how your skills, although no doubt an almost perfect match, could possibly fit with the secretary vacancy available. Also, they tend to stick to their bank of regular temp employees, limiting your chances of truly getting any work once you are signed up for work with the agency.

Again, often the ‘who you know’ comes into play when you deal with employment agencies too. They like familiar faces.

It’s complicated with an agency! I mean that too. I have found one job via an agency and that was when I was 18. After this point, they basically run out of use for me! I prefer going direct to the employer, as agencies are for me are gatekeepers who guard their vacancies and turn away good people.

So, how can you make that leap between having the qualifications, skills and everything all singing and dancing with whistles attached to actually getting a half decent job, without having to know someone who can help you step up or onto the ladder first?

Well you could try bribery, lies, deceit and of course pretence.

No, only joking – I’d never advocate such extreme and possibly illegal acts to secure a job, of any description, although it might work well for some people out there!

Regardless of the frustrations, to be forewarned is to be forearmed in any situation. So I have included a few tips that have worked for me when I have been job hunting, and have helped me overcome the hurdles that can be in place. Also, these tips helped me to not feel that ‘the job market sucks’, because I felt I was at least trying to be proactive:

1) Research the company you want to work for – before an application you need know what the company does! Yes, there are people out there who don’t do this, and fall flat very quickly. This research can also apply to speculative applications too. I’ve known people who have contacted companies on the off chance to enquire whether there are any vacancies available. Although there were no vacancies at that particular time, the people made such a good impression upon the employer via the telephone, they have been offered an interview on the spot.

2) Ask questions about the role you are applying for – often speaking to the Manager or even the admin team before you apply for a role can endear you to them. You can make an excellent first impression, which they will remember.

3) Tailor your application or CV to match their job requirements in every way possible. Generic CVs or answers to application questions won’t cut the mustard. Think about all those transferable skills you have and make them shout out at the employer! Ensure to include everything you think is relevant; if it isn’t on your application for an employer to see, don’t assume their psychic!

4) Remember that not every employer is an expert in recruitment or interview techniques. So, if an employer feels they have a rapport with you, they may feel more inclined to offer you a job. Make them feel comfortable, and show then you have everything they want and need in an employee.

5) Research possible interview questions – this helps as some questions will inevitably come up and doing your homework prior to interview makes you look like a pro. Also, know what the company does (as per my first point), they will ask what you know about them, be assured of that!

6) Don’t ask silly questions – enquiring about the fantastic salary, bonus or holidays, regardless of how tempted you might be to do so it will signify the end of your interview!

7) Rehearse – the presentation or any answers to questions, study the information you have about the company. Sounds self explanatory, maybe, but these points are often overlooked.

8) Feeling over confident – this can trip you up, so don’t ever think you’ll ace an interview, as being cocky isn’t prepared and isn’t endearing to an employer.

9) Ask to visit the company before the interview to meet staff. They might not accept this offer, but it shows willing.

10) If possible, become a volunteer – this can help you get a foot in the door, you can see first hand how the company runs, and get a feel for the place. Also, it will allow you to know whether or not you could see yourself working there. Plus, it’s added experience for your CV.

11) Ask friends and relatives if they know of any available jobs – ‘who you know’ can sometimes bring unexpected job opportunities. It isn’t always a bad thing to take some time and utilise your contacts.

12) Apply – don’t expect one or two applications a week to bring you success. The more you apply for the more chances you have in securing an interview.

13) Make an employer smile or laugh – during an interview it is OK to use humour to your advantage. Just don’t be rude or act like your high; they won’t be laughing with you in those cases.

14) Dress smart, but not too smart – this might sound like common sense, but the amount of people who don’t grasp this concept is unnerving. Tracksuits, leggings, jeans and OTT jewellery, for most types of interviews are a definite ‘no’. Also, if you are a fashionista going for an interview, which isn’t with Vogue magazine, dull down the fashion or face alienating the interview panel. You want them to remember you not your clothes. If they are left thinking ‘they were weird’, because employers will judge, as we all do; this won’t make them want to hire you.

So that’s it, and although I didn’t intend to give a ‘lecture’ on job seeking do’s and don’ts, I have somehow managed to slide off track! Anyway, I hope some of what I have included in this post can prove helpful for someone, somewhere. I hope it also highlights that although job seeking can be the most frustrating, and stressful thing to do, and the odds might seem stacked against you, you can achieve successful results. Nothing is impossible if you put the effort in, and get savvy with some of the simple rules.

Many thanks for reading!

 

 

 

 

 

The UK Turf War

Once again immigration is the topic of conversation for the UK, and as usual it hasn’t taken long for the UK press to revel in the delight of ‘scaremongering’ and ‘scapegoat’ rhetoric.

If the news is to be read literally though, it would be enough to frighten the pants off any level headed individual just going about their business; an influx of foreign workers stealing jobs and benefits, who plan to eventually take over the country for their own ends! Sounds sinister!

All of the talk, press and otherwise, does raise important questions though. Is this truth or merely scare tactics? Also, just how fair, equitable, free and humane does it all sound? It is immigration, but we are talking about people right and not merely cattle?

Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007, but now that the UK has had to lift its restrictions to their job market, fears have escalated, by what seems like over-night, to a boiling point.  Should the UK nation be afraid, is there about to be a turf war?

I was nosing around the net, wondering if all the hullabaloo was in fact worth the media frenzy. What I wanted to know was whether the people of the UK really gave a damn about who from the EU might or might not take up UK residency. It didn’t take too long to stumble upon something curious.

The below text has been copied from an actual on-line petition set out on the HM Government website. Its creator, a member of the UK public, along with 153,811 signatories, seemed to obviously feel that there indeed would be a mass of Romanian, and Bulgarian immigrants desperately making their way to the shores of the UK.

“In 2014 EU restrictions are set be removed, allowing nationals of Bulgaria and Romania ‘free movement’ to the UK. The move is similar to the one that granted access to around 600,000 Polish immigrants to enter Britain over recent years.

Despite Bulgaria and Romania joining the EU in 2005 (Savvy Senorita edit – it was 2007), restrictions were put on the number who could move to Britain. However, those restrictions will be abolished in 2014 (Savvy Senorita edit – I.E now).

Once the restrictions are lifted all new comers will entitled to claim benefits, housing, child, job seekers etc. There is currently an estimated 1.5 million people seeking work within the two countries

The impact will also put pressure on housing, infrastructure, schools, and heath care. All at a time the government are cutting pensions, jobs, public services and the armed forces.

I request the government suspends the easing on these restrictions” 

I then took a look at the newspapers. There were ample comments left upon The Daily Mail and Guardian’s websites; replies to the articles telling the world about how our MPs feel or fear about immigration. In one such article, (posted in the Guardian: link below), it was claimed that David Cameron believes that the immigration levels for Romanians and Bulgarians is now reasonable enough; the responses to this article however provided a somewhat different perspective;

“We need mass immigration as a pro business policy Cameron is completely wrong.

Think about the benefits, house prises rise make home owners wealthier and Britain can remain competitive by getting cheaper labour.

We live in an increasing globalised world and we in the EU have China to compete with. He couldn’t be more wrong.

In addition without immigration we would have to spend an exorbitant amount training our own feckless and work-shy, and the price of house keeping would rocket.

The EU must not allow him or his party to get away with such inflammatory comments”.

These quotes demonstrate two very different ideas about immigration, both of which are actual opinions held by people living in the UK.

OK, so I know there maybe those out there who feel that any level of immigration is too high, and others who think that the doors of a country ought be flung wide open (each to their own); but isn’t there a happy medium?

What I mean is, can’t we talk immigration without becoming so emotive? Can’t we leave all the scapegoating, racism and the overly P.C comments behind, and focus on what could be the real issues of immigration for the UK?

I want to ask the powers that be, and the people;

Can any country allow mass immigration? Does any country have the capacity to offer that? Is it economically viable? Could they offer employment, housing, services and support (et al) to everyone that comes to, and resides in the country?

Is immigration a one way street – the people from the poorest nations moving to the richer ones? Is immigration about making money for a country or spending money? Do we all really have freedom of movement? How many people would up-sticks and re-locate to another country? Is that even possible with the economy and the lack of job opportunities? Also, EU countries differ from the UK; different languages, educational requirements, alien benefit and health care systems which not every resident will have access to.

Why is the UK immigration fears/policies subject to mass interjection from other countries? Why has it become such a contentious subject? Every country has its own ideas regarding immigration, yet, I don’t see every country being asked to explain themselves. Is UK immigration a national or international issue? Whose country is it to govern, and make those decisions about immigration? Have the UK Government merely become some middle man in all of this, without the real power to decide what happens in their own country? More importantly, does anyone care what the public think and want?

Is the UK a ‘soft touch’ for the world? Is the UK being racist in its cautious approach to immigration?

Is the UK Government trying to appease everyone, and pleasing no-one at the same time? Is immigration a way of making amends for a shady past history as ‘colonial conquerors’, do they feel guilty?

Has the UK given up on its people – do they invest enough in what resources and talent they already have? Why would the country require an extra work-force from abroad, when the UK already has those who are in need of training/re-training, educating, employment, self-employment, good wages and steady/secure jobs? In fact, can the UK Government deal with the issues/changes and problems the country already has? Are they actually taking on too much responsibility by accepting more people they won’t be able to ‘do right by’?

Will there be a mass exodus from one country to another? Will the Romanians and Bulgarians swamp the UK, and take over the country? Why do people live in fear of immigrants stripping the country bare? Immigration is nothing new for the UK; it has always been multi-cultural and accepted people from far and wide, why then is the country now so angst ridden?

Is immigration a good business and economic policy? Is it investment and profit? Is it more people claiming benefits and abusing the system, sending money back to their families in Romania or Bulgaria? Is it escalation of crime? Is is merely public cynicism and distrust? Is it greed and shady dealings? Is it appeasement or enlightenment?

I personally feel the UK cannot close the doors to immigration, but there are certain discrepancies with how the UK handles the subject. I don’t doubt that UK immigration and policies per se are being vetoed or strangled by the EU. I question though, who benefits from all the upper echelons (in the UK and EU), wrangling amongst themselves because of their own agendas? Well, it isn’t the people they are supposed to represent and that is for certain.

I believe immigration has become a convenient red herring in many ways, an issue placed before the public to distract from the real issues on the table, the real failure of those in charge.

With or without immigration, the UK still has serious issues; how is the Government going to convince the UK public that they can do what they say they will? When all the scapegoating and smoke screens have gone, what is left? A Government who doesn’t really know what they really stand for, and which way to turn in any crisis without squabbling like children.

I wonder, when there is nothing to fight over, what remains to fight for?

I will leave you with a quote (another reply) to that article in The Guardian (I mentioned earlier in this post: link below);            

“The UK is not concentrating on “job building” it is penny wise and pound foolish, driving wages down to a minimum base and sitting complacently on a million unemployed and millions under-employed. We have so many things that need replacing and repairing, upgrading and restoring here, but the governments we have seem happy to suck up to businesses who cream profits off-shore and let the citizens scrabble around in the mire for part-time low paid work.

We have work that needs doing, but lack the courage to invest in our people to improve the quality of life for everyone”.

Check out the article at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/27/cameron-romania-bulgaria-immigration-reasonable

A Job Is A Job…………

Above picture from Morbid Anatomy website.

A 19 year old who had been desperately searching for work in Germany received unexpected confirmation from the Labour Office; they had secured a job for her. You might be thinking a job as a; shop assistant, administrator, bank clerk, in a factory or a million other different jobs; but NO, this girl was told to begin work in a brothel.

Yes, that is correct a brothel.

A waitress at a brothel to be more precise. This was the job the teen was offered, or at least was told she WOULD DO, as opposed to the housekeeping job she had been hoping to find.

Great prospects for any 19  year old to aspire to, working in a brothel.

OK, prostitution is legal in Germany, but nevertheless a quick enquiry to discover if this ‘career option’ was what the teen wanted, would have brought back a resounding NO! Just because something is legal doesn’t mean everyone agrees with it, or wants to be part of it.

I soon began to wonder; because prostitution is legal, and the person looking for a job happened to be a young girl, whether the Labour Office automatically thought the teenager would be OK working in that type of environment????

After all she is a woman, and that is what a woman is for – to serve, for sex and pleasure. Therefore, a brothel would be ideal for any woman to work in. Why wouldn’t a woman want to work there?!

Yet, perhaps the Labour Office just think of this as a job; something better than nothing??????

The teenager has refused the job, so I wondered what people thought about this???? Refusing work in this rough economic climate, a job is a job after all right??????? Any port in a storm to survive??????

Yet,  Should anyone force you to accept a job that goes against your morals, ethics, ideals and standards????

Could you suspend what you felt and believed to work in such a place????????

Perhaps you think a brothel and prostitution is great career choice???????

OPINIONS PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Unemployed; An Easy Target?

The Tory Government are once again on the war path, seems that once they have the bit in-between their teeth they are unable to let it go!

Unemployment benefits and the unemployed; these are the Tories NEW official target now. These are the new scourge of UK society.

At last the Tories have stumbled upon a policy they obviously believe will bring the UK people firmly back on their side, and now they won’t stop the cull. Any policy that outlines how to cut these benefits, how to reduce them, minimise them, and how to rid the country of the unemployed is fair game to them.

Are these policies a good idea???

I have mentioned in many other posts that there has been a need to reform the benefit system in the UK for LONG while. Plenty of taxpayers money has been going into the hands of recipients who don’t deserve it; I have direct experience with this type of work, so I was used to witnessing this inequity everyday. I was always infuriated by how genuinely in need people lost out under the system’s rules! However, the new Tory Manifesto regarding the latest proposed measures is a step too far, or maybe a step backwards.

The Tories not only want to cut benefits for people living North of London, but also want to target claimants who are classed as overweight too.

The reasons behind this new proposal??

People living North of London have a lower cost of living; which is the worst excuse for cutting a benefit I have ever heard. Poverty is still a factor whether you live in London or not! Also, those who are overweight will have to abide by their Doctors rule and loose weight to be able to continue claiming a benefit. The overweight claimants have to comply with what is deemed healthy, so not to drain the NHS or other UK support systems of precious resources; but what about the bureaucracy that currently drains the NHS of resources? Will that be dealt with too, as that squanders the money before any patients are even seen!

This Tory manifesto has other proposals too; axing the retirement age and lengthening the school day by up to three hours. Great, so when can a hard working person claim their much deserved pension? Also, they struggle to keep kids in school now, so good luck with applying those extra hours to the day!

This whole ‘Manifesto’ screams that the Tories are not willing enough to deal with the whole rotten picture, and the core of the problems. It seems the Tories have become lazy, and are now opting to target pockets of people to vent their wrath upon (the scapegoats of UK society); in a hope this will save them money! How wrong could they be?!

How about actually adopting a comprehensive package to solve unemployment in the UK, rather than one based on prejudices and nonsense?

One where; businesses are encouraged and job opportunities are actually produced. Where the actual advertising of jobs is given back to the Job Centres, and taken away from the grasping and ‘closed shop’ employment agencies that hold on to them all now. Where retraining is available to all ages, and not just for the over 50’s and under 24’s. Where education is advocated too, and not just in the form of Vocational training. Where Maths and English skills are valued and encouraged; I have seen countless of people who are illiterate being told it doesn’t matter by the Job Centre, when clearly it does! Where regional development policies are advocated; local councils and agencies work together to seek a tailored solution to the myriad of problems which afflict areas suffering from the worst and persistent unemployment! Where help is agreed which is actually required and needed; instead of cutting funds, invest into communities. How about also thinking about how to help other regions other than merely London!

As far as cutting benefits for the overweight go, well, I have never heard anything so ridiculous! This one factor alone is far from a cut and dry issue. Who is classed as overweight? Anyone without a perfect BMI and that is over 60% of the UK population, if not more. Who classes you as overweight? Your Doctor, therefore people will immediately boycott going to their GP. This will stack up serious health issues over a fear that anyone overweight, and claiming a benefit, will now be a GP’s target. If they don’t dance to their GP’s tune they won’t be eligible to claim a benefit they require to survive upon! Also, NOT every person who is overweight is on a benefit, nor is every person who is overweight work shy!

Is this judgemental nonsense what the Tories want to include in a serious political policy? What is the next step here?? I didn’t realise the UK would be so happy to live in a ‘police’ state! One final thing to consider is that there are plenty of people working, and also in Government jobs who are overweight too; so what is the proposal for them??

I know benefits and unemployment are difficult situations to remedy, and the solutions are not easy. Yet, nothing will be easy when those issues have been left to languish so long without attention. If the Government are going to tackle the issues and problems, then, do it right or don’t bother! Otherwise, the UK will be left with more follies hampering it’s progress, and more problems to rectify in the future.

Recession? You Need Free Market Principles.

The many strands of recession

This post comes as a direct response to a ‘conversation’ I had with another person regarding recession, current economic climate and political solutions to Government debt and failings.

My intention is not to appear biased in favour of UK political preferences or experiences. I just want to raise the topics that were initially put to me, and answer with my thought on them. So, here is the basis of the initial conversation:

‘Free Market Principles (*description located at the bottom of the post) will save the US from falling into the same problems as Europe and the UK now face’.

I have been wondering just how many of these principles, and in what measure, are actually already adopted in countries all over the globe? Could it be that countries already going through recession ignored these principles and therefore floundered? Could these principles alone be the answer to and solution for future recessions? Are a set of inflexible principles capable of such a feat? Are reasons for recession so ‘cut and dry’?

Well, the person who argued the merits of Free Market Principles used certain failings as a measuring tool to highlight what had brought about recession; unemployment, Government debt, taxing the rich, ‘big Government’ as opposed to limited Government, and the over reliance on grand scale public welfare or social welfare policies classed as the ‘Nanny State’.

Now there are issues which can be debated.

Those of you, who may read my blog, you might be already familiar with my take on the UK Government and welfare system – NHS and state benefits. See below for further links:
Poverty In The UK
The UK Welfare State
The Declining Health Of The NHS

These systems are not perfect, and I will be the first to admit that, but like anything there is more to the issues than may initially appear. That is why no issues which any country or Government face at the moment can be so easily deemed a failure or because of recession. The background information for that failure should be first discussed first.

Let me also add, no country is perfect and neither are ANY Governments. There are many mistakes made, and many issues then created as a result of bad policies or decisions.

On to my thoughts:

I am not going to break down exactly how Free Market Principles apply or should apply. As I mentioned earlier I want to see behind the reasons for failures, to talk about the ‘tools’ used as a measure of failure.

Government Debt:

Initially I question the sweeping generalisation of Government debt as a simple cause for recession. Some nations like the UK for example have had to have debt to survive 2 world wars. Without debt the country would never have scraped through such detrimental hardships brought about by the wars.

Factors that lead to any Government debt are a ‘chicken and an egg’ scenario; many issues, like those the UK faced in the war eras have been running on since that time without being fixed. Deep flaws in policies and decisions have occurred as Government has grown and changed its form over the years. The welfare State for example has its very origins in the aftermath of the 2nd World War, and since then it has out grown its initial remit, but this change has never been fully represented in the entity it has now become (I will discuss this later). Hence, issues linking to failure.

In most countries there will be hidden issues, plastered over cracks that once recession hits them, they become highlighted and exasperated; these cracks then become huge holes, for example issues with unemployment. These issues may have been left lingering until a recession hits; when a country or Government is under the most scrutiny, then the issues have to be seen to be dealt with, then they gain attention.

Factors for unemployment do include going through a recession:

Yes, but other factors can lead to the final breaking point. Rapid changes in technology, disability, changes in business, changes in supply and demand, attitude towards employers, willingness to work, immigration, climate change, migration, perception of employees, employee values, discriminating factors in the place of work (may include discrimination on the basis of age, class, ethnicity, colour and race) and ability to look for employment all effect the figures initially before any recession begins.

Taxation is never a favourable topic:

Raising taxes is not especially popular either, and when the wealthy of the country are going to be effected, then that is seen as damn right outrageous. I will bring in France here: French Prime Minister has said there will be a 75% tax rate for people earning more than 1m Euros.

Now I don’t necessarily agree with the tax level France is opting for, but people should be taxed according to what they earn. Wealthier people shouldn’t have a free pass just because they bring ‘wealth’ into the country, because so does everyone who works and contributes to the economy of the country. It is merely that the wealthy have more money to be taxed or contribute to a country with, but they are part of the country too. The ordinary working person is affected more by fluctuations in tax during recession; on their salary and goods, and it is them who are generally Struggling To Make Ends Meet

Perhaps France opted for this tax increase for the wealthy as they didn’t wish to impose harsh cuts on public services that would affect the whole country. Look at the UK and the ‘Geddes Axe’; recommended slashing government spending in precisely the way today’s believers in ‘expansionary austerity’ recommend in time of rescission. Did it work for the UK in the 1920’s, no and consequently this spiralled UK’s debt levels. Pre First World War debt levels weren’t attained again until 1990. So cutting Government public spending isn’t always the answer.

Public services are a drain in times of recession though:

Well they have been a drain for years and why, well there are complex reasons. Let me concentrate on the UK’s NHS. This system has evolved over the years; peoples changing lifestyles, higher populations, larger catchment areas, more diagnoses of illnesses before unrecognised, Doctors running National Health and Private surgeries which clash, not enough medical staff, privatisation of the 1980’s, rising wages, Primary Care Trusts and the amount of ‘pen pushing’ bureaucrats hampering Government money being spent where it needs to be. In the UK ‘big Government’ as opposed to the limited version is not to blame for the failings, but rather that Government hasn’t enough of a hold and control over proceedings. They haven’t a clue what is going, and therefore the whole system has become lax, un-scrutinized and out of control. It is a lack of grasping the changes and implementing a policy that reflects this that causes the trouble, not recession.

The NHS is not perfect, but again neither is for example the US system, and the US isn’t in a recession like the UK. People in the US can’t afford insurance (30 million of them to be precise). So, how can limited Government eradicate any of these issues for any country?

OK let’s talk about who likes Free Market Principles.

Well, the conservatives who claim to have a profound love of them have no use for them; professing fealty to the markets is only a rhetorical strategy. Some would say they favour policies that distort the market in such a way that income and wealth flows to those at the top, but given that most people who cast votes in elections are not among that rarefied few, they have no desire to defend those policies on their merits. So, do they have a place in a society where the majority struggle to live??

But big Government ruins the countries wealth:

I feel a Government needs to know what is going on in their country, not be blind to it (I argue they are blind enough). It is a Governments duty to ensure its citizens when in need, receive help in the form of public services. They are there to respond to needs or why else do we elect them? What is the need for Government per se if they have no role in the country they govern?

I think everyone should be ensured they have a slice of the cake in the 21st century, even if it is a small slice, better than starving to death under the premise of ‘we can’t intervene we are a limited Government’.

People should not be allowed to flounder and disappear just like dust under a carpet; just because they aren’t a member of the ‘select committee’ (the wealthy) in society.

Boom and bust is worse under principles advocating intervention:

Well maybe, but then under a limited Government where there is no intervention is anything truly invested in; anything other than protecting and encouraging wealth? Pursuit of wealth above public needs can be detrimental to a flourishing society, as it reflects and encourages only a certain percentage of people and people’s lives. Not everyone can be wealthy, not everyone’s lives run smoothly.
I for one don’t want a return to a Dickensian way of life, I think I prefer intervention.

*Free Market Principles:
Individual Rights, Limited Government, Equal Justice Under Law, Spontaneous Order, Private Ownership, Subsidiary and the Golden Rule of honesty. Yet I am not going to focus on whether or not these principles, word for word, do impact and can solve recession. Instead I am going to think about reasons

Struggling To Make Ends Meet – Poverty in the 21st Century.

Ed Miliband (Leader of the Opposition Party), Boris Johnson (Mayor of London) and many others are now calling for, and indeed advocating the introduction of a living wage in the UK. What is this initiative? Well, it’s an hourly rate for working people, which is re-set each year to reflect the increases in costs of living. The rate of this living wage is based around what an employee requires to provide their family with the mere essentials of life.

The recommendations for these living wage rates are; £8.55 an hour in London and £7.45 an hour for the rest of the UK. Yet, these figures have already come under criticism for falling short of the real requirements of what workers need to survive.

Yet people are expected to now survive on a minimum wage. In comparison to the current minimum wage for those who are aged 21 and above, which is now a paltry £6.19 an hour; the figures above already prove a shortfall for the workforce. Most employers will only pay the minimum wage, regardless of the job, the duties and qualifications required. Cheap labour, exploitation and damn near slavery are what the UK work force is used to. With unemployment on the increase the employer ethos of ‘take it of leave it’ is never more powerful. People will put up with terrible wages and unfair working conditions or face unemployment. It isn’t exactly job satisfaction that keeps people working, inasmuch as sheer necessity. Workers in the UK are already being short changed of the basic requirements that are needed for them to actually live, so then how are they currently surviving without a living wage?

Well, when people don’t earn a living wage they have to work two jobs rather than one, get credit cards and loans merely to eat, and actually to travel to work! People are forced to live in poverty whilst actually working full time, their children aren’t eating properly, they can’t afford to heat their own homes and so and so on. What century is this anyway? Seems awfully analogous to something Dickensian.

Things have changed, relatively perhaps; but the premise remains the same.

So isn’t the living wage an answer to all those issues? Well, it is a fairer and more equitable option, where employees may actually feel they have value. Surely working people deserve to earn enough to live and participate in society, otherwise they might as well be outcasts. What are they working for exactly; and it isn’t just to pay taxes and pay bills (those days are, or I thought they were, over)! This isn’t a time of the landed gentry and farming peasants! People want to live a life! At the moment most people aren’t, so if the current minimum wage isn’t doing society justice then what are the issues with changing it?

Well, the UK Government are the issues. They aren’t sold on implementing a living wage, but crazily enough they are happy to provide benefits to subsidise low income families (those surviving off the minimum wage). In fact the amount of benefits being paid to those in work is on the increase! That means that society is already helping out low-paid employers, which to be honest really makes no sense. Doesn’t that outlay of benefits alone indicate that the wages are too low in comparison to the ever increasing cost of living and taxes? Why not then just solve the root of the issue instead of applying a sticking plaster that clearly doesn’t work; as people are still in poverty!

Yet, it isn’t merely about the cost of these benefits to the taxpayer; it’s about the cost of changing people’s work ethic. Actually demonstrating that is does pay to work. That people aren’t just working to pay the bills, and keep their heads just above the water line. That life isn’t all hard slog and little else; I mean isn’t that what the mill workers in 19th century thought about their lives? When will this working poverty and servitude ever change for the working people of the UK? It is a perpetual and entrenched vicious circle! What does society or the economy get out of such a system, nothing!

I thought we’d left the cotton mills behind?

For those who argue the UK couldn’t afford a living wage, that is somewhat naïve and morally wrong. What makes more sense; extra household debt (ethereal money that doesn’t really exist in the economy, and that no-one can afford to pay back), and money being given in benefits from taxes, or, money given in real wages whereby it can be properly invested into the economy?

I can see why this push for change is being blocked though; ordinary working folk could actually gain something rather than merely get less. I know; it’s a shocker and such an outrageous idea! How dare the ordinary people want more than merely working their hearts out for nothing other than paying their bills! What is the 21st century coming to?! Any new initiative meant to embetter a workers life comes up against opposition; the national minimum wage itself wasn’t looked upon favourably, neither were trade unions, equal pay, employee rights or the abolition of child labour, oh, and slavery.

How can a country prosper if their people don’t? Simple question, yet no one is willing to answer it!

Check out: http://www.livingwage.org.uk/

Copy Right Notice:
© Bex Houghagen and The Savvy Senorita, 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Bex Houghagen and The Savvy Senorita with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

The Welfare State or a Scroungers Paradise?

At the moment there has been plenty of media coverage about ‘Social Security’ and ‘Welfare’. It seems if it isn’t the UK, it is Spain or the US that are fighting for more or less of the ‘Nanny State’.

The ‘Nanny State’ is a complex, and often antiquated system founded upon a set of ideals, which works to maintain the status quo of welfare, so it is available for everyone to access; but is it still doing its job and is it this enough in the modern world? Could a radical shake-up of the system be justified? How radical a change would be called for or tolerated to help to reform or re-create the system? Especially a system which might have served a country for so long, it is difficult to imagine being without it.

Welfare in the form of unemployment, sickness and disability benefits have changed lives; brought people out of poverty, saved people from poverty, and helped to support millions. Yet, there are always a number of individuals who spoil the system, flouting the premise of welfare rules just to con the country out money for nothing. This is where the negative begins to impact upon welfare, and soon the rot sets in to unravel any good that was ever done by it.

It is common knowledge in the UK that there are people claiming a benefit under false pretenses, Hell, I should know I have worked with said people! I know the scams and I know they are completed successfully as the system has no safe guard to prevent such fraudulent actions. Consequently, the amount of tax payer’s money leaking from the system every year is unquantifiable. Reasons being are that fraud is difficult to prove, and the evidence alone can take time and yet again money to pursue. So, how can this misuse of time, money and services be prevented?

It seems there is no answer, no Government has found one anyway, or maybe they are unwilling to do what is necessary to stop this. Maybe it would be too radical a step, but then what would be worse; continue pouring billions down a never-ending drain every year, or, fix the problem once and for all so those who truly need help get it!

The fact that there is help available for all, as long as people meet the eligibility criteria for a benefit, is a great thing, but therein lies the parody. A 24-year-old who is physically fit and able, can in theory and practice, claim unemployment benefit in the UK forever. The whole world seems to know this too, as there are many who come to the UK in search of work, and then they too end up claiming benefits. There was a case in the ‘Daily Mail’ recently regarding a Latvian woman, with 10 children, claiming every benefit available to her and still; demanding more. Now, there are people working in the UK, barely scraping by, what with the economy being as dire as it is; but yet they are not eligible for any help, why, because they work and are deemed wealthy enough. Yet, someone who has never worked, and there is no reason that they can’t, is eligible to take from a pot they have never paid into. The contradictions in the system go on and on to the point where people are beginning to question; what is the welfare system truly there for? Is it for those who genuinely need its help or is it just for those who want to scam the system?

I have met so many people who don’t claim what is rightfully theirs, because they feel ashamed, don’t understand the process or don’t know they are eligible; and then I have met others who milk it dry. I have met young men and women who could secure work, and even turn down jobs just to stay on benefits. I have met men of 45 made redundant having worked since the ages of 14 and 15, and they are told they can only claim a benefit for 6 months, and their mortgage payments won’t be covered by the welfare system. Yet, I have seen people claiming they live alone, when they have a partner with them, and they are receiving housing benefits for houses they don’t even live in! I have met people with extreme physical disabilities who get refused benefits, and some who don’t even think to try to claim anything as they just go to work; whilst a person with psoriasis is deemed disabled! Aren’t these the very contradictions which prove the system isn’t working as it should be? That the help isn’t being received by those who truly need it?

Oh, and one final thought: during my time working in the unemployment sector, one specific case stuck with me, and it wasn’t as unusual as it might sound. It was of a man in his late 30’s (physically fit and healthy), married with 5 children; he and his wife had been claiming benefits for many years. He said himself it wasn’t worthwhile him working, though he had been offered jobs, because the salary was so little compared with what benefits he received. Between unemployment benefit, tax credits, child benefits, housing and council tax benefits the man’s income for a month was £2000. That is equivalent to somebody’s monthly salary, and they wouldn’t be eligible to receive any benefits.

So, is it worthwhile maintaining a welfare system that perpetuates unemployment, because it provides more stability and income than an actual job, or, is it about time there were more restraints, and checks to ensure that only the truly in need received the help? Maybe a sliding scale of benefit payments, which could be assessed and based on individual needs, so that not everyone receives the same amounts? Or, is it time to bin the system and start all over again?

What do you think? What is the welfare system like where you live? Have you experience of the system? Do you think it works or is it failing? Do you think welfare doesn’t go far enough, and people need more, not less?

Leave comments below, thanks!

Copy Right Notice:
© Bex Houghagen and The Savvy Senorita, 2012. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Bex Houghagen and The Savvy Senorita with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.