Stockholm Syndrome At The JobCentre…

An anonymous former Jobcentre Plus worker shows the sort of mentality that exists in some public sector workers:

The work and pensions secretary enlists a familiar set of cliches in his attempt to portray the British welfare system as "bust", while simultaneously displaying a worrying ignorance about how the system actually operates.

As W&P Secretary, he isn’t expected to understand the minutiae of the day to day job, now is he? That’s why he sits in the big chair, and you sit behind your ‘computer says ‘No’..’ screen…

Duncan Smith repeats another cliche – that people are better off on benefits than working. He states: "If you are unemployed, and you come from a family that is unemployed, all you can see when you think about work is risk."

That's a cliche, is it, according to you?

So we should ignore all the recent cases highlighted by the newspapers (and picked up by bloggers) where people have cheerfully and openly admitted that they are better off on benefits, should we?

In fact, very few are materially better off unemployed, as there are numerous financial incentives to ensure that taking a job is financially rewarding. Jobcentre advisers are trained to offer "better-off calculations" that detail claimants' potential earnings from these benefits.

So why is no-one offering these calculations to the above cases, anon?

Or is it that they are, and because there’s no element of compulsion, they are simply ignoring them?

A major factor behind long-term unemployment is that the slender rewards of taking poorly paid work aren't compensated for by the additional stress involved in taking some of the worst jobs in society.

Ummm, sorry?

Let’s read that again: ‘…the slender rewards of taking poorly paid work aren't compensated for by the additional stress involved in taking some of the worst jobs in society.’

It seems ‘anon’ has taken on board the attitude of his/her ‘clients’. Work is not something to be considered a normal part of life, to be done in order to earn your daily bread, it’s to be considered only in terms of whether or not it’s worth it.

After all, if you don’t work, you won’t starve, will you? The State will provide.

Given a choice between receiving £60 a week to do nothing and £80 a week to clean toilets, most of us would opt for inactivity.

Well, of course we would. Because the State will provide, if we just don’t fancy working. It’s our ‘uman right, innit?

No restructuring of the system is going to compensate for lack of opportunity.

No restructuring of the system is going to work while there’s a free lunch in the offing for these people, paid for by others…

With this in mind, Duncan Smith's promise to re-incentivise work has sinister implications. The easiest and cheapest way to do this is to slash benefits to a level where they can't sustain a tolerable lifestyle.

And what constitutes a ‘tolerable’ lifestyle, I wonder?

No more than one ‘Playstation 3’ system? A six-month-old style of trainer? Sky TV?

Let me spell something out to little Miss or Mr Anon: No-one owes you a living. Or your ‘clients’, for that matter.