 |
| Cait Reilly who is suing the Government for 'Forced Labour' |
Unless you have been through unemployment you really cannot understand what it is like. I have been there three times, just after I graduated in 2000, in 2009 when the recession hammered the construction sector that I work in to oblivion and in 2011 when I was no longer in the world of law. I have empathy with Cait because:
She had the get up and go to find and commit to voluntary work
Lots of long term unemployed do not want to work and often with low level skills and no work ethic. Cait was a graduate who found a voluntary placement in an area that interested her. She should be commended for having the gumption to do that not vilified. She already had retail experience so actually how would Poundland two week unpaid placement have advanced her skills? I don't think they would have done so logically as long as she wasn't just sitting on her arse at home doing nothing she should have been allowed to continue with her voluntary week.
She would still have had to sign on and go to the job centre every fortnight
Only once you have gone through the horrible rigmarole that is attending your signing on day and that general sinking feeling that you get at that precise moment that you realise you are heading there, please don't assume that this is a walk in the park. There are so many people who sign on who have no get up and go, do the bear minimum to receive JSA and have no educational skills often not even being able to read and write. They do not want to work and our jobcentres are not actually geared up to deal with these people who are actually the ones who need the 'big boot' from big brother more than people like Cait.
Signing on is not a walk in the park for scroungers
As a professional person who has contributed to society through my taxes for over 10 years I have the right to claim JSA and shouldn't be made to feel bad about doing so. For certain professions including architects and sectors such as construction, the recession has hammered them hard so saying that there are jobs out there may well be stretching the truth a tad. If there are jobs they are often unpaid or employers have dropped salary levels so far you would end up living in abject poverty so what god would that do?
The one thing that does rile me about Cait though is:
The fact that she has chosen to take the Government to court
Is she the victim of an unscrupulous lawyer out to make a name for themselves through advising her her to sue? It's not their reputation and future employment prospects that are being tainted as the case has evoked so much negative exposure for Cait. Or is this something that she has dreamed up herself as she is so aggrieved by something that is undoubtedly unfair?
Either way she should have raised it with the people at the Job centre. She is articulate enough to complain to the people in charge of the job centre. Believe me, I know that many people there are plebs but there are also some who do have common sense and would have seen the merits of her argument and done the sensible thing and let her continue at the museum.
If you think that by not suing she would have gained the attention of the decision makers than you are deluded.
ReplyDeleteTo make changes in this country you have to stand out.
Anon, I don't quite agree with that - I had a decent advisor at one job centre who allowed me to bypass the no-hoper style courses linked with signing on and got me on the ones that were more suitable to my skills. I do believe she could have found one of those and got the result that she wanted.
DeleteAs I understand it, her advisor recommended she undertake "training", which turned out to mean sweeping the floor at Poundland. By the time she discovered this, she couldn't back out - "rules". So I'm with her all the way. This was wrong. Period. Whoever it was. We abolished serfdom in 1574.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm also less pessimistic than you, because I think the right people will take note; I would certainly see it as a plus, if I were interviewing her, because there is always space for someone prepared to stand up to injustice. So hopefully, as a result of the coverage (which I suspect she didn't solicit), she will get offered a job. But even if she doesn't, and even if you're right and it hurts her career, and even if she loses the case, she still did the right thing in my book. Standing up to unfairness is always the right thing. And I can't believe you're criticising her for not going to the top and wriggling out of it (because I'm not sure I would have done that, either); and that you see avoiding becoming "tainted" as the only criteria for action in that world. That way lies a hell I don't want to part of.
From one of the radio things that I listened to where they wanted to interview her - she refused as on numerous occasions presenters had torn her to shreds and she was a bit shell shocked. That type of thing makes me think that she may not necessarily have been the main driver of this action and may have been a pawn in some legal advisers game. That troubles me more as was she may have not have been warned about what to expect and that things could spiral and effectively turn nasty. I actually feel somewhat sorry for her in this regard.
DeleteI just bet nobody thought the case thought would go viral. Or if they did, they were naive about the press reaction. But whatever, it doesn't matter. Access to justice shouldn't be dependent on the ability to withstand the scrutiny of Daily Mail columnists and radio interviewers.
DeletePerhaps a better way for her to have started would have been to arrange a meeting with the manager of the Jobcentre and the manager of Poundland. If she got nowhere with this she could have taken her complaint to her MP. Instead she has come out with all guns blazing by suing the Government and it’s now too late to back down and take a more conciliatory approach.
ReplyDelete