The Lords of Orwellian Equality

I've blogged this over at my other blog "Passing The Speed of Light" but, since these blogs are not linked, I thought I would post it here as well. You never know, someone might read it.

I've been taking a somewhat perverse delight in reading various articles about the Same Sex marriage debate in the House of Lords just lately. It appears, with the number of amendments being tabled, that many of the members have an inherent fear of change. These amendments even have a name now, "wrecking amendments", specifically designed to wreck or seriously delay the SSM bill's passage through Parliament. They also have one other thing in common. They seem to also be designed to place same-sex marriage below that of opposite-sex marriage, all the while maintaining the façade of equality.

Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has tabled an amendment to bring two tiers of marriage into play. This redefines opposite-sex marriages as "traditional marriages" and makes a distinction between opposite-sex and same-sex marriage. The amendment states:

“nothing in this Act could take away the right of a man and woman to enter a traditional marriage. A ‘traditional marriage’ is one where the basis of the marriage is the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life, to the exclusion of all others.”

What concerns me about this is that nothing in the act takes away the right of opposite-sex couples to enter into a so-called "traditional marriage". It merely extends the meaning of marriage to include same-sex couples, giving them the right to call their union a marriage. Lord Carey doesn't even bother to give same-sex marriage a label, as if it is beneath him. Also, if it wasn't so serious, the part about "voluntary union of one man and one woman for life"  would have me laughing, when you consider the divorce rate in this country (42% in 2010).

So, two tiers of marriage then? Both offer exactly the same vows, both have exactly the same status in law, both legally cement the relationship between two people who love each other, both have the same benefits but, if this distinction from Mr Carey were to go into the bill, one would become slightly more equal than the other. To paraphrase George Orwell's character, Napoleon, in Animal Farm:

"All marriages are equal, but some marriages are more equal than others"

Another amendment, tabled by Lord Mackay of Clashfern, would allow straight couples to enter into civil partnerships. Why? Equality? CP's were introduced because the SSM bill either wasn't finished or the government of the day were too scared to bring it in, so they came up with Civil Partnerships.  CP's were supposed to be equal in law but could never be called marriages. It was another example of discrimination masquerading as equality. So Lord Mackey wants to offer straight couples the ability to join Rosa Parks at the back of the bus? Or is it because same-sex couples had something that straight couples didn't? Or is it something more insidious? Lord Mackey also went on to say that "marriage should be for natural procreation". Is there a hint of something there or is my imagination reading something more than is being said? Giving opposite-sex couples who cannot have children a less than equal marriage, maybe?

Probably the most damaging amendment, though, is the call for a referendum on the SSM bill in 2015. This would mean that, even if the bill passed through all stages ready to become law, it couldn't become law until voters approved it on 7th May 2015, at the earliest. Now, I don't know about you, dear reader, but I  don't recall ever being asked if I wanted the country to join Europe, or being asked to vote on Universal Credit, or the Equality Act 2010, or any other bill which affects nearly everyone in this country to one extent or another, prior to them becoming law. So why is it so important that a bill, which will bring equality to a small minority of the country, leaving the majority unaffected, be voted on in a countrywide referendum? It isn't going to cause the end of the world, nor is it going to cause the downfall of society, or cause a post-apocalyptic degenerative society to suddenly appear. Most countries who have introduced SSM seem to be getting on with things quite well, even the US states which now have it don't seem to have broken down into chaos and disorder.

I can only hope that the Lords see sense and reject all of these 'wrecking' amendments and take another step toward a saner world.

An Open Letter To Iain Duncan-Smith, Work & Pensions Secretary

Dear Mr Duncan Smith

I am not normally given to outbursts of anger when things go wrong in life, nor do I normally post online about it, nor write letters. I normally sort my problems out quietly and then just carry on but, given that this not only affects me but, potentially, also thousands of people around the country, I decided to change that policy in this instance.

On Tuesday 9th April 2013 I signed on as usual, happy in the knowledge that I had recently secured a job, a contract that would last at least a year and which was well paid, which was due to start on the 2nd May. In my excitement I hadn't updated my Universal Jobsearch page online. I was told by my advisor at the JobCentre that this would probably result in a sanction. It did. For four weeks. This caused me a bit of a problem but nothing insurmountable. With the help of my parents I was able to get through it, even though they have retired and live in Spain.

I signed as usual on the 23rd April. On the 25th April I received an update email from the Regional Manager of the contract I am due to start informing everyone that the contract start date had been pushed back to 1st July due to technical difficulties. Annoying but not disastrous. It just meant that I would be signing on a little longer than I thought. 

On the 7th May I went and signed on as usual, having filled my Universal Jobsearch with all the searches and job applications I had made, and things went smoothly. Come the Friday when I would usually get paid, there was nothing. Now this was beginning to cause a problem. I spoke to one of the advisors at the JobCentre and they told me that the sanction would be six weeks, not four, because the JSA payments are made in arrears. Ok, no point in blowing up at the staff. Not a lot they can do. 

I signed again on the 21st May and, again, no money on the Friday. I went and spoke to the senior advisor in the JobCentre and she gave me a Hardship Payment application form and told me to fill it in and bring it back. I did so, the same day and was told that it would be sent off and I would receive a payment within a few days. Unfortunately there was a Bank Holiday in the way which would delay payment. In the meantime I had to live on the good graces of friends and parents. 

Come the Friday following, (31st May), there was still nothing. I went into the JobCentre to complain and I was told that my Hardship Payment Application had been sent off and authorised. I was then told that I would receive payment on the following Friday, the day I would normally get paid after signing on. I asked if this was on top of my normal JSA payment and was told no, it was in place of it. 

I signed on as usual on 4th June and asked if things were sorted. The advisor then told me that he couldn't access my claim as it had gone to 'Clerical'. So I asked the senior advisor what this meant and she told me that my payment would be made manually and I would get my money on Friday 7th, as usual. Friday arrived and still nothing. I went and complained and the senior advisor said that she would send and email to 'clerical' to ask them to make a payment and I would be contacted. I received a text message later that day informing me that my hardship payment would be made within 24 hours. At the time of writing this I still haven't received anything. (08/06/13 at 11:47). This means I probably will not until Monday at the earliest. In the meantime, the only  'helpful' thing the staff could recommend was that I go to a foodbank if I was having problems with food. I mentioned that my electricity was getting low but all they said was that the food from the foodbank was selected to be microwaved or eaten without cooking.

Throughout all of this, I have had not one single letter or other communication from the DWP regarding what is going on. I have had nothing to say that I am on a sanction, no explanation why my claim has gone to 'clerical', (whatever that is), no communication whatsoever except the one text. The advisor's at the JobCentre have no real idea, the people at JobCentrePlus have no idea, (not that I can phone them anymore), everyone seems to be in the dark. I can only imagine how this would affect someone less able to cope, with less support than I have. There is a saying that moving home is the single most stressful thing a person will do in their life. I have to disagree. From this year onwards, the single most stressful thing a person can do is deal with the DWP.

Over the last four year I have had no real problems. The ones I have had have been dealt with quickly and fairly by the staff. If I've had to speak directly to JobCentrePlus then they have been friendly, helpful and relatively quick, (for a government organisation). Since this new benefits system has been introduced, though, that has changed. So I have to say: If this is your new system, Mr Duncan Smith, then I am afraid it is sadly lacking. Lacking in communication, lacking in empathy, lacking awareness, lacking in any suitable framework within which to supply a service to those who really need it. Those of us who really want to get back into work, those of us who really see the benefit system as a safety net, not a lifestyle. A safety net whose strands are being moved further apart, allowing more to fall through and disappear, rather than be caught and helped. 

It is also lacking in any workable structure to support those staff at the 'customer' facing end. I have worked in customer-facing IT for nearly thirty years and have faced some of the nastiest, most unpleasant customers you are likely to meet, (many of them corporate), which is why I have been able to keep my anger in check when at the JobCentre. I've been there, on the receiving end. Most haven't. I've read about claimants who 'go off on one' at staff, and the staff reply in kind. I've heard from friends that the staff were "dimissive" or "aggressive and nasty" when they've been to the JobCentre. Maybe some customer service training wouldn't go amiss. Knowing how to talk to people and having the ability to defuse potentially explosive situations goes a long way. 

I am lucky. I have now found a job. Yes, its taken me four years, a small forest of paper and thousands of hours of running around like a headless chicken.  I just have to find a way over the part of my safety net that has been cut away. Others are not so lucky. 

Maybe, Mr Duncan Smith, a rethink is needed. I have several suggestions that my help and I may put these in a blog at a later date but, for now, I have said enough. 

I will, however, put two further thoughts across:

1. If you are aiming to get more people into work, then why are you taking away paying jobs with the WorkFare program? Do you really think that companies are going to pay people for full time work when they can get those same people, in the same jobs, for free? 

2. It's funny how my problems with my claim started when I mentioned that I had been offered a job. Hmmmm.......

Yours sincerely

Christine Danielle Anderson.

Sanctions And Reactions

Normally, I'm not given to over-reacting to situations. In fact, if I was any more laid back, I would probably fall over, but this is different. This is something that is causing me a problem.

The DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) has instituted a new system, at the behest of Ian Duncan Smith, which is part of the overhaul of the benefits system in this country aiming to get people back into work. I'm all for this. I would love to get back into work, in fact, in July this year, I'm due to start a new job, ironically, for the DWP. The problem is, the guidelines and processes put in place are not going to work very well. In fact, I think they are going to cause more harm than good, especially in the short term.

The measure in place now are allegedly designed to encourage people to find work. What they are going to do is force many people out on the streets, or possibly into crime. The biggest change is the Universal Credit system, which is going to replace the likes of JSA, ESA, Disability, Housing Benefit, etc. This means that all benefits will be paid in one lump sum into the recipient's bank account and they have to sort them out themselves. Along with this is the link to HMRC which will supposedly do away with having to 'sign off' when starting a new job and 'signing on' when ending one. The HMRC link should enable the DWP to see when a person finishes work and automatically apply their benefit without them having to apply, (unless they have never applied in the first place then a single application will have to be made). This sounds all well and good and, if it works as it should, then it should solve a lot of problems.

The main grief though, is the sanctioning system. This has caused me no end of problems and may be the cause of so many more for other benefit claimants and the government.

The sanctions are a part of a multi-tier system of punishment when a claimant does not do what the DWP wants them to do to find work. Each benefit claim starts with a 'Job Seekers Agreement', which is a list of actions the so-called Jobseeker has to perform each fortnight, such as looking through local papers, sending out CV's, applying for jobs within their desired industry, etc. These actions have to be recorded in a 'jobsearch book' which the claimant has to present each time they sign on, or into the new 'Universal Jobsearch' website, whichever system they are using. Prior to April 2013, if the claimant didn't do this then sanctions were rarely applied if there was a good enough reason, eg they were ill. Now, the sanctions are being applied if there are not enough actions recorded, if they are not spread out evenly, if there are no applications made despite job searches being made and various other reasons.

One thing I wasn't aware of is that even if you have secured a job, as I have, then you still have to perform the job search and apply for jobs. This gives rise to another problem, one for potential employers. I'll go into that in a minute, but back to the sanctions.

The sanctions are applied whenever a claimant doesn't perform within the bounds of their Jobseekers Agreement. It starts with the payment being suspended for four weeks, (ie, two payments). This actually works out at six weeks due to benefit being paid in arrears. If the claimant continues to ignore the agreement then the next sanction is for 13 weeks (within 52 weeks of the first failure) for subsequent failures. The problem lies in the vague list of reasons for not performing within the bounds of the jobseekers agreement. Almost any reason could be given that would qualify for not complying. For example, as I wrote above, job actions not spread out, eg clumped together the night before signing on; not enough job search actions, (I have to do 28 items in a fortnight, I can imagine getting sanctioned for doing only 27); inappropriate job search actions, ie outside the agreed bounds of the agreement, ie searching for full time work when you've agreed only part-time work.

So, anyone can be sanctioned pretty much any time, for anything. This means loss of benefit money, leaving the person in a situation where, in many deprived area's of the country, turning to crime to get money is the only option. Not everyone has family they can turn to. Walking into a job has now become nigh on impossible with the rules and regulations employers have to follow to employ someone, even for the most menial jobs. Building work, for instance, used to be the easiest to get into. Turn up on site, show you can use a shovel or broom and you have willing, no problem, job's yours. Now, you have to go through an interview process, obtain a CSCS card, (showing you have learned Health and Safety), have a bank account, references etc, just to be a site labourer.

That takes us to the problem for employers that I mentioned. When a claimant secures a job, which may not start for a month or two, (like me), they still have to abide by the rules of the Jobseekers Agreement and look for, and apply for, work. This means that employers seeking workers will received applications from people who don't really want the job because they have one, but still have to apply regardless. So the jobseeker's time is wasted, and the employer's time is wasted, especially if the employer has invited the applicant to interview, which the applicant must attend. Of course, there is always the chance the applicant may be offered a job which is better paid and better suited than the one they have already been accepted for, but I should imagine this would be quite rare.

I've had to jump through hoops to get the job I am waiting to start. I have had to attend meetings fifty miles from my home, pay out money to get security clearances, set up a new company, (which costs money), all the time still having to apply for other jobs. I still have to sign on, still search and apply for jobs, have to attend any interviews I get, update my online job search on a a regular basis, even though I now have a job, which, unfortunately has had its start date delayed twice due to technical issues.

I have now been put on a four week (two payment) sanction which, for some reason, has turned into 8 weeks with no notification from the DWP whatsoever. I have no idea what is going on, the advisors at the JobCentre have no idea what is going on. I can't phone up since I no longer have a working phone due to inability to pay the bill, (I could use the JobCentre's but I really don't want to broadcast my business across the whole place, you could hear a mouse fart in there, also the phones are only for calling about jobs, according to the rules). So, at the time of writing I am waiting for the DWP to call me regarding whatever is happening.

I'll let you know.