Benefit Busters is on again tomorrow at 9pm. The first episode of Series 1 of Benefit Busters spreaded a lot of anger of Princess Emma of Sheffield in her mansion and A4e: the largest New Deal Provider.
New Deal Scandal will review the preview clips of Episode 2 of Benefit Busters – this show could really damage the reputation of A4e. The clips are “Easier on the dole” and “Job ready“.
Disclaimer
Everyone judges people. I do too. I am not prejudice though, I get to know someone before I judge. For the purpose of this TV show it is good to realise that Television is a form of entertainment (whether factual, comedy or otherwise) and what little elements of a person is portrayed in a scene of a TV programme that is typically scripted is not of that person in real life.
For the purpose of this article all references to a person featured are of them as an actor i.e. on the show and doesn’t necessary specify what they are like off camera.
Easier on the dole
“Mark” even though as down to earth as he comes across, is the typical benefit scrounger. In your 30’s you are in your prime (16-29: you are seen as “wet behind the ears”; 40+ “past it” for most jobs) – to be fair he was not unemployed that long in his 30’s but it is difficult to be unemployed for 10 years.
Also, for people in his age group it is easier than say the younger unemployed person. As the older age group are less successful under New Deal they don’t have to go on it so often.
He may be unemployed for 10 years but he isn’t stupid. Working for National Minimum Wage isn’t enough incentive for him. There is a major issue he raised around those who work and find it hard to scrape by but for mark this isn’t the issue.
The “is it worth it?” calculation
The problem is (for example) if you have a job that gets you £92 net a week for 16 hours work and without a job you get £60 benefit per week instead of working out the difference between amounts of income a week (including any taxation and NIC deductions) and wanting to work, these benefit scroungers deduct the loss of the benefit from their projected wages then work out how much you would actually be working for per hour using the National Minimum Wage as a guide.
These benefit scroungers need to have their benefits stopped as it takes the piss for genuine jobseekers (such as me). It also is illegal, as to receive unemployment benefits (Jobseekers Allowance) you have to be Actively Seeking Employment – declining opportunities and job offers for this calculation method is wrong and unlawful.
The calculation for this example: £92 – £60 = £32; £32 / 16= £2.00
As £2.00 is well below the National Minimum Wage these benefit scroungers don’t see themselves as:
a) better off,
b) that the opportunity to get a job is illegitimate (this calculation brings the wage below the NMW)
and/or
c) that the hour maximum they spend at the jobcentre a week (works out around £60 per hour) is easier work
Continued…
So, Mark thinks that money grows on trees and that Jobseekers Allowance is a right (even though he isn’t Actively Seeking Employment).
A genuine jobseeker claiming such as myself would take the job (as used in the above example) as the wages bring in more weekly income and is a step on the employment ladder. Ok you have to do work but beats going to the jobcentre surely…. its only part time too (so still got time to do other things) and you pay pennys of NIC per week and are below the tax threshold so don’t pay any tax. As it is below £100 per week you can claim Housing Allowance too.
You got these benefit scroungers who have no intention of working, claiming benefits for decades lying to the Jobcentre that they are Actively Seeking Employment, that a) give us Genuine Jobseekers a bad name and b) obviously cost the taxpayers tens of thousands of pounds.
Matts speech
An employee clearly admits that the majority of those on the course have no chance of securing employment from the course.
Job ready
Clients are segregated in to rooms of Job Readiness… one group who are “deemed” to be job ready are in the Green Room and everyone else is left to be in the Amber Room. That is those who A4e believe will get them a bonus goes to the VIP room (known here as “Green” room) and everyone else is left to be abused in the Amber Room…
It is not a secret, “Steve” openly admits it is not about getting people in to employment. It is all about making sure he stays in the job by meeting targets.
Then there is some young woman who has to make it clear that she is not a “snob” on what appears to be her first time on TV but she sums it up well… TEDIOUS! She appears rather intelligent.
You can clearly see in the footage that people are so bored when left to rot in the Amber Room, that people resort to drawing around their hands, browsing the internet and colouring in the cover to a book.
Benefit Busters: Episode 2
This episode airs on Thursday 27th August 2009 @ 9pm.
Summary of links contained in above New Deal Scandal post
Related posts
- A4e Hull Benefit Busters Episode 2: now on 4oD
- A4e Benefit Busters Single Mums Review
- Benefit scroungers are Britains most annoying pet hate
- New Deal Scandal & Welfare Reform: network snippet
- A4e Benefit Busters: why A4e isn't the answer for welfare
- Do you trust the Department for Work and Pensions with your data?

given prominence to agency work in “episode two” in the series of benefit busters and the difficulties encountered when short term work leads to greater problems.
the council can demand one months council tax and you have only worked a few days’ for example.this also leads to financial difficulties when having to reclaim benefits and the time delay involved.
i have noticed now the jobcentre have an increasing number of adverts where the term agency isnt mentioned it appears on a few now these are called “operating as an employment business” also more are being advertised as “this is a temporary position on an ongoing basis” more and more, this can mean anything.
job adds need to be carefully read as elsewhere on the page its mentioned as permanent employment,when clearly further down its not the case.
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thanks Ken: you are right both examples of advert text implies an agency, and the second example somewhat hints about a possible zero hour contract. Jobseekers once committed to applying can’t refuse a job offer because the type of contract so are banned from reapplying for Jobseekers Allowance.
This gives me an idea for a new blog article
Like or Dislike:
0
0