|
MysticalMachineGun posted:The punishment for not showing up to appointments is to continue to be treated like a piece of poo poo on the shoe of Centrelink, you don't need extra kicks in the gut on top of that. But that's the reward for showing up too 
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
MonoAus posted:I'm not really sure I understand. Because the appointments are inherently harassing. It's like asking someone to show up to be punched in the face and then punishing them for having the good sense not to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:24
|
|
|
That's funny, I don't remember being punched in the face. Whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
I'm not sure what the point you're making is? You were on Centrelink for two weeks, nothing went particularly wrong and you didn't have scheduling conflicts, and you've now decided that this is typical and everyone else receives the same treatment? I mean, even if the people are nice and helpful requiring you to waste your time being patronised is a pretty big imposition. open24hours fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:30
|
|
MonoAus posted:I'm not really sure I understand. Because it works like this: At best, you show up at a time that is convenient for you. Everything goes smoothly - you don't have to wait in line and you get to your appointment on time. You deal with someone who basically looks at the jobs you're applied for and goes 'Okay, that's good, see you in a few weeks'. Nothing has actually happened. You haven't been helped. At worst, you get an appointment at a time that conflicts with something. You then have to wait in line for at least an hour beyond that - assuming that they don't just turn you away after that time, as I've seen Centrelink do. You deal with someone who doesn't seem to want to be there and notes that you've applied for nineteen instead of twenty jobs and decides to give you a reprimand, a fine, dock your payments, whatever. In this case, nothing still has happened in regards to your employment and you haven't been helped - only now you're out more time, money and personal self-esteem because of it. This is really basic stuff. Blizzard ran into something similar with World of Warcraft where they initially had 'basic XP' and 'reduced XP' after playing over a certain amount of time. There was a massive public outcry over it, people thinking they were being penalized for playing. So, Blizzard changed the wording to 'rested XP' and 'normal XP'. The numbers and mechanic remained exactly the same but suddenly people thought they were getting a bonus as opposed to a penalty. Negative incentives (eg. come to the appointment or be fined) aren't incentives at all to most people - you need people to feel like they're being rewarded for doing things properly, not just 'getting what they expect' if they're ticking all the boxes. The choice shouldn't be 'expected' and 'fine', it should be 'positive' and 'expected'. Centrelink should be there to help people get jobs, not harass them for not getting one - do you understand the distinction? poo poo, imagine if Centrelink gave people some small bonus if they had been applying for the requisite amount of jobs, attending appointments and doing their best to actually be employed? I bet that'd work out better, strangely enough. Milkfred E. Moore fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Obviously I can't speak for everyone, all I can tell you in my personal experience. I remember the appointments were inconvenient and long, but I wouldn't describe it as a punch in the face. I personally don't think it is unreasonable for the agency given the task of helping(forcing) people back in to the workforce would need to have appointments with those people. I don't think it's reasonable to fine people for not being cooperative with the system, but my question was what SHOULD happen in that situation. open24hours posted:scheduling conflicts You're just assuming they wouldn't accept this as a valid excuse for not attending. That may or may not be correct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
I just got an email from Centrelink saying I had a letter on myGov to read. I open up myGov and find a .pdf to read from Centrelink saying I have an appointment to see them at a certain time and place, and if it doesn't suit then to contact them to change it. I call the number in question and while talking to a computer and listening to their spiel while waiting, it mentions you can change your appointment time on the website now. It did not say this in the electronic letter, just to call the phone line. While waiting to be connected to someone (saying "Operator" down the line) I tried to log in to the Centrelink website from the link on myGov and got some database error about things not working right now. Being the savvy internet user I am, I went back and tried the link again - and this time I got through to the Centrelink website! I scanned the website for a little while and nowhere did I see any mention of appointment booking. By this time I was connected to someone on the phone and I mentioned I needed to change my appointment - because someone who is on a Parenting payment which is going to be cancelled for a child who is turning 6 can't come in to Centrelink at 2 in the afternoon. I'll be picking kids up from school soon after that. "They should know that by now" says the helpful operator. I also mention how I can't see appointments on the website. "Oh you just type in appointments and it should come up" says the operator. There is no obvious place to type anything. Anyway, I got the appointment changed to a suitable time over the phone, and it didn't take particularly long (Family services probably don't have as many people calling them). I finally clicked on a little menu icon at the top of the website and find a place to search, type in appointment and up comes a menu item that doesn't have appointment in the name, but when I click the little plus next to it the option I want shows up. When I click on the spot to change appointments it tells me I have no scheduled appointments. That's my story, thank you for listening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
If JSA are still like they were in the Howard era, then anyone whose employability is actually improved by the JSA probably still unemployable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:42
|
|
|
They already cut off your payment at the drop of a hat for missing appointments (eg, THEM not calling YOU for a phone appointment, having an appointment moved but not being told etc), and I imagine if you get abusive youre asked to leave, in which case its hard to attend an appointment. But an immediate 'fine' from a private business for not doing something they want without question is an extra step. Its all in that 'find reasonable' and 'acting in a manner “such that the purpose of the appointment is not achieved”' I could imagine someone finding it unreasonable that you cant attend an appointment on a day youve got work, or a doctors appointment or something. I can imagine someone finding it unreasonable that you dont agree with the option youve been forced into as a work for the dole business, and think its uppity you suggest youd prefer elsewhere. I can imagine suggesting its useless doing a cert 2 word processing when youve already got a Bachelor of Computing isnt supporting the purpose of appointment. Its obvious the entire system is about making people give up, or trip up, but now they dont even try to hide it. But all of that poo poo aside, how much more blood can they squeeze from this stone? Edit: I mean poo poo I had 2-3 months with these clowns about 2 years ago and had 3 of the things I mentioned happen. Luckily I just had to sit on the phone for 4 hours and someone managed to fix it up. I can only imagine the system is worse now and having to officially appeal a fuckup and be screwed in the meantime... jesus. Box Hill Strangler fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
MonoAus posted:That's funny, I don't remember being punched in the face. Whatever. If you can be in Sydney weekend after next, Canberra weekend after that I'm happy to remedy this punch in the face situation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:47
|
|
MonoAus posted:You're just assuming they wouldn't accept this as a valid excuse for not attending. That may or may not be correct. In my case, they didn't accept 'I'm employed full-time and have been for four weeks so I cannot attend the appointment at the specified, nor is there any real need to' as an excuse.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:47
|
|
|
Bogan King posted:If you can be in Sydney weekend after next, Canberra weekend after that I'm happy to remedy this punch in the face situation. Why is that? You're going to punch me in the face because I said something about centrelink on the internet? I'm pretty sure I agreed that centrelink is horrible and shouldn't be handing out fines too... Milky Moor posted:In my case, they didn't accept 'I'm employed full-time and have been for four weeks so I cannot attend the appointment at the specified, nor is there any real need to' as an excuse. Well that's pretty piss poor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Bogan King posted:If you can be in Sydney weekend after next, Canberra weekend after that I'm happy to remedy this punch in the face situation. If that time isn't suitable, do you dock him 10% of the punch velocity?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Even if you are obligated to attend appointments, it's really hard to muster the will to attend if you believe them to be a waste of time. Even if you are a model job seeker who is actively looking for work, the time it takes to get ready and commute to can be better spent at home. They don't really provide much beyond what you have at home except for maybe a newspaper. And if you are managing your job search on your personal computer, then it's actually a pain in the arse to have to do stuff away from it. Often for people attending a one on one appointment, the manager is checking off your progress and interrogating you as if you were getting in their way of meeting some quota. Expecting people to be inconvenienced and attend a verbal dressing down is a bit much. I imagine for a lot of people, they find that environment to be intimating, if not hostile and are inclined to avoid such situations out of instinct. It doesn't make sense to penalise people for non-attendance, because appointments are generally not constructive towards finding employment. The effect of a penalty is actually detrimental to job seekers, it causes financial and emotional stress and runs counter to the purpose of the payment (to cover living expenses). Even if you ignore every other argument, it just doesn't make sense from a purely functional perspective. I'd also point out that they do cut you off if you don't attend appointments. The difference is that you can ring up and grovel to Centrelink and they will reinstate it, which is punishment enough. Tokamak fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
More anecdotes: my niece got her payment cancelled because the system gave her an appointment that occurred before the letter was posted. It took 3 weeks to get it reinstated. And then two appointments at two locations at the same time, and again payments suspended due to missing an appointment. If you're going to be so drat trigger happy with suspending payments, you'd better make drat sure it's being administered competently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Look I can say this about the whole thing which bad and smelly, the work for the dole program did get me used to sleeping at midnight and waking up 7. It hasn't fixed my stress which causes me to wake up frustrated, scared or depressed every single night about 3-4 times a night, but it has made me used to waking up with absolutely nothing to look forward to except being cramped in a train to go somewhere I hate for 8 hours. So I guess I'm work prepared?
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
MonoAus posted:Why is that? You're going to punch me in the face because I said something about centrelink on the internet? Sorry if I was being too subtle but yes, I will happily punch you in the face. Also, it's not Centrelink handing out the fines but the JSA's.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Tokamak posted:I'd also point out that they do cut you off if you don't attend appointments. The difference is that you can ring up and grovel to Centrelink and they will reinstate it, which is punishment enough. Why are they trying to bring in fines then? Surely if this is a 'gently caress-the-poors' situation it's better to stick with cutting you off for not turning up than fining you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
punitive measures against government supported people in an economy designed not to have 100% employment AND based on consumption (with the unemployed spending more of their payments) seems counterproductive as gently caress
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Bogan King posted:Sorry if I was being too subtle but yes, I will happily punch you in the face. Also, it's not Centrelink handing out the fines but the JSA's. Well JSAs are horrible and shouldn't be handing out fines either. Still no reason to punch me in the face.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Is it still the case that after 3 months on the dole you have to attend "intensive" workshops? I imagine they're actually quite useless, and a complete waste of time. I chose to get off of the allowance rather than put up with that poo poo, despite my part time work not getting me over the threshold.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
I am required to go in twice per week to search for work for an hour. The consequences of this are plain: 1: Because of the bus timetables, this ends up eating three hours out of the middle of my day, making scheduling anything else at a reasonable hour on those days pretty much impossible. 2: It costs me money to attend these appointments, even with concession fares. 3: I am forced to use lovely computers to do my job search, and don't have access to resources I have at home. It needs to be said that the original requirement was for three "appointments" per week for the same time. I successfully convinced them that was stupid and managed to wriggle it down to two. All in all, it serves to be a waste of time and money for me. It accomplishes nothing, in fact it does worse than nothing because I have had to cut back on my job search outside of those hours just so that I have something to do while I am there because, as you can imagine, the available part time job market in things I can actually do is not very large.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
All you need to know is that 100% of JSAs are a complete scam that are rorting the government for every cent they can squeeze out of them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
MonoAus posted:Well that's pretty piss poor. I think you're starting to get a grasp of most people's experiences with Centrelink. It is an insanely punishing set up where even very intelligent people struggle to correctly fill in the paperwork, get approvals and meet all the arbitrary requirements to get money to live off. Then they cut off your payments because you missed an appointment they didn't tell you about, or they lost your paperwork, or the computer system was down so someone didn't enter in your appointment that you went to and gently caress you it's 3 weeks until you can appeal time to beg borrow or steal to pay the rent. I got cut off from payments because while I was studying full time, the course I was in when I started was put in for the wrong number of points. So when the unit values changed I was no longer full time in centrelink's system despite studying full time, I had to get 2 different written letters from the university hand signed from quite senior staff to prove I was studying there full time. This took weeks and weeks to resolve and unless I was working at the pizza shop I didn't eat because the pittance I earned went into rent and fuel. Centrelink is an invasive crushing nightmare designed to make the life of people on it as difficult and miserable as possible so they give up, I can't imagine anyone voluntarily exposing them-self to that system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
MonoAus posted:Why are they trying to bring in fines then? Surely if this is a 'gently caress-the-poors' situation it's better to stick with cutting you off for not turning up than fining you. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
Birdstrike posted:punitive measures against government supported people in an economy designed not to have 100% employment AND based on consumption (with the unemployed spending more of their payments) seems counterproductive as gently caress You're just using the wrong metrics.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
Birdstrike posted:punitive measures against government supported people in an economy designed not to have 100% employment AND based on consumption (with the unemployed spending more of their payments) seems counterproductive as gently caress Welcome to  ~*~*~*NEOLIBERAL ECONOMICS*~*~*~
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
starkebn posted:All you need to know is that 100% of JSAs are a complete scam that are rorting the government for every cent they can squeeze out of them. idk, hard to say they're rorting the government when the government are happily in on it
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:13
|
|
MonoAus posted:Why are they trying to bring in fines then? Surely if this is a 'gently caress-the-poors' situation it's better to stick with cutting you off for not turning up than fining you. Because it's not actually about helping the people who need it, but making the Government seem like they're 'cracking down' on 'Welfare cheats'. It's so John and Jane Citizen who read the newspaper see that the fines are being brought in and go 'Ah, good, Turnbull's doing something about those drat unemployed bogans'. It's politics and it's loving over people who need help.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
MonoAus posted:I was on newstart for 2 weeks many years ago and they gave me 2 free smartriders for going to job appointments etc. even though I told them I didn't need them. Do you know what they do in those appointments? They take your form and then ask you how it's going and then you leave. Most don't even check the forms. When I was going to these things I didn't have a car, couldn't catch buses because of mental reasons (still can't), didn't have money for a taxi, so I had to walk an hour and a half to the closest place to essentially hand in a form. But that wasn't the bad part. The bad part is they obviously weren't trying to help. There's no carrot. It's not "come to the appointment where we'll help you get a job, and if you don't come we'll have to cut your payment", it's just "come to the appointment or we'll cut your payment". When I got diagnosed I was supposed to be sent to a disability provider but got sent to a regular one again by mistake (a new one from the one I was at previously). I would have complained about the mix-up but I didn't want to risk anything changing for the worse. I was deathly afraid of any communication with or from Centrelink at this point. At the first appointment the girl stared at me like I was some kind of space alien when I said I'd never had a job and have severe mental problems and would need a lot of help. Stared. Like she had no loving clue what to do with someone who desperately needed help and asked for it. Then she finished writing down my details and set me an appointment in the next fortnight and sent me on my way. I went to study computer science at university because I had literally no idea how to enter the workforce otherwise and nobody "helping" me seemed to know either. Sometimes I think the few years of being able to just go on Austudy and ignore the system entirely was more helpful than the degree. It was certainly worth getting paid ~$100 less a fortnight. EDIT: Reading other replies looks like they added more stuff after the time I had to go to these things. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
I went to go mock Van Bad Ham but she's blocked me. I've literally never interacted with her or dropped criticism on her. I guess this is what change from within feels like.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
Birdstrike posted:punitive measures against government supported people in an economy designed not to have 100% employment AND based on consumption (with the unemployed spending more of their payments) seems counterproductive as gently caress Many who are unemployed and can't find work are locked out of the market for a number of reasons, many of which are not within their direct control. Lack of up to date training, no knowledge of current best practices, unfamiliarity with new software packages, injuries, jobs moving offshore etc. These are circumstances that could happen to anyone if they have a run of bad luck, or some misfortune and fall out of the job market for a while. It is therefore imperative to vested interests that people not realise this because then they might start asking why this happens, or worse yet, making noises about stopping it. The best way to do this is to make sure people think it is the unemployed persons fault that they are unemployed. We'd love to hire them, but they are so lazy that we can't afford to. People who have jobs go "I'm not lazy, therefore that kind of thing won't happen to me if I somehow lost my job". The whole thing is a complicated mess, but the real issue boils down to scapegoating the poor for the problems caused by the wealthy, blaming the poor for deficits while at the same time not paying their own fair share in taxes and demanding further cuts and subsidies. Because the poor are poor they can't really mount a defence against that kind of thing. Basically it is just bashing a convenient and weak minority in order to distract from other issues.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:24
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:Is it still the case that after 3 months on the dole you have to attend "intensive" workshops? I imagine they're actually quite useless, and a complete waste of time. I chose to get off of the allowance rather than put up with that poo poo, despite my part time work not getting me over the threshold. I think it depends on your JSA and job plan. I know my JSA had something like that, a 'job club' where you were supposed to go to do... something, with other unemployed people. I never had to go, because the people I reported to realized I was already doing amounts of work far beyond even my diasability-reduced job quota and my autism probably wouldn't have meant I got on well around it, but it was floated a couple times. Near the end, a few months before I actually got the job I'm in now, they signed me up to a cert 2 in IT, partly because it was in my job plan to do educational services when offered and they just hadn't come up before. It was a waste of time for me to be there, everyone at both the agency and educator knew it, but it was required to keep me on the books.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:32
|
|
|
Bogan King posted:I went to go mock Van Bad Ham but she's blocked me. I've literally never interacted with her or dropped criticism on her. I guess this is what change from within feels like. She name searches, and probably just blocks by association. It's bizarre how much she seeks out criticism solely so she can to over-react to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Pickled Tink posted:This isn't about economics. This is about victim blaming. You forgot literally being unemployed for more than 3 months. Some employers will look at a gap in your cv and assume you're an unmotivated slacker, because they've simply never been unemployed during an economic downturn. Simply being unemployed is enough to keep you from being employable when the opportunities are limited and growth is in the shitter. Why do you think the BCA were actively trying to force a recession during the GFC, by lobbying the Liberal party to block all stimulus? They love it when unemployment is high, but they don't like paying for it, which is why the system is so loving punishing. Hell, Wayne "Treasurer of the Year" Swan did a great write up on it today. Don Dongington fucked around with this message at 05:39 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
MonoAus posted:Why are they trying to bring in fines then? Surely if this is a 'gently caress-the-poors' situation it's better to stick with cutting you off for not turning up than fining you. Because once you are cut-off, then there really isn't much stopping you from reapplying. Which is why they typically reverse it if you call up. The sort of people who don't reapply are people fed up or emotionally exhausted and try to live off debt (which is a bad outcome). Whereas if you fine someone, there is less grounds for appeal, you 'save money', you appear tough on bludgers, and gently caress the poors. It leads to a worse outcome for more people, and it functionally holds them back from finding employment, it has the opposite effect of the desired outcome. Who is more likely to find a job if you have less money for food, travel, clothes, internet etc? It's absurd.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
I lost my job in October last year and lived off my savings until I was employed at the end of Jan as My girlfriend told me all the poo poo she had to go through to get the small supplemental payment to make life easier. They would schedule appointments that they knew she couldnt get to due to her working those days, and only ever offered appointments on those days, despite this information being shared every single time. she eventually told them to gently caress off after they tried to convince her that they helped her find the work (that she actually got through one of her teachers) I went broke right as I got the job, but at least I didnt have to line up with meth heads and weirdos and put up with the infuriating morons behind the counter. sucked that i lost all that money which i wanted to put into some surgery but im earning heaps now and will get it done eventually. I have no idea how anyone can blame the dole bludgers for the gross overspending on welfare when the system is so bloated and convoluted that it probably absorbs more tax payer money in salaries and inefficiencies than is ever lost on dole bludgers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
Sounds like a system purposely designed to reduce the number of Australians.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
open24hours posted:You're just using the wrong metrics. My JSA looked at my resume and said "Wow that's the best resume I've ever seen! Can I keep a copy of it on file?" Sure why not. "Now your first compulsory mutual obligation activity will be resume writing." You can not make this poo poo up. I have had an employ turn down a regular shift because they had a JSA appointment and apparently even me ringing them up, or writing and complaining wouldn't be good enough.  El Scotch posted:Sounds like a system purposely designed to reduce the number of Australians. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/mar/09/highest-australian-suicide-rate-in-13-years-driven-by-men-aged-40-to-44 quote:Highest Australian suicide rate in 13 years driven by men aged 40 to 44 Cartoon fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Mar 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 06:36 |
|
|
I'm going to preface this with this statement: I, forums user MonoAus, do not condone or agree with the serving of fines to those on government allowances, be those fines issued by Centrelink or JSAs. I also acknowledge and agree that Centrelink and JSAs are inefficient, poorly run entities that make it difficult for everyone to get the assistance they are entitled to. Please do not threaten me with violence. Please do not take any statement that doesn't end with 'gently caress centrelink' as righteous support for loving people over. Tokamak posted:Whereas if you fine someone, there is less grounds for appeal, you 'save money', you appear tough on bludgers, and gently caress the poors. It leads to a worse outcome for more people, and it functionally holds them back from finding employment, it has the opposite effect of the desired outcome. Who is more likely to find a job if you have less money for food, travel, clothes, internet etc? It's absurd. I'm still not clear on what the purpose of these fines are beyond appearing to do something about a perceived "problem" but not actually doing anything at all. The article said that there would be grounds for appeal, I imagine it wouldn't be any more/less difficult than reapplying. Cutting off someone's payments saves a lot more money than fining them 10%. No question over making it more difficult to find a job though, it's incredibly counter-productive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 05:59
|
|