Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

Zero-Hour Contracts: Job Centre “Coaches” to Mandate them.

with 50 comments

Yet more pressure on the unemployed.

The BBC reports,

Jobbseekers risk losing their benefits if they turn down certain zero-hours contracts without good reason, the government has said.

Until now, people on Jobseeker’s Allowance could refuse to accept such jobs without facing penalties.

But the new universal credit system demands that people take up the casual contracts – even though they do not always guarantee work.

The government insisted such contracts offer an average 25 hours work a week.

Department for Work and Pensions

A spokesman also explained that when workers did not get the hours they needed, their universal credit payments would adjust automatically to ensure they were financially supported.

Labour said the government should focus on stopping abuse of workers through zero-hours contracts rather than on forcing claimants to accept such working arrangements.

Under the new scheme, claimants who turn down a zero-hours contract when it is thought to be suitable could lose payments for more than three months.

Employment Minister Esther McVey outlined the change in a letter to Labour MP Sheila Gilmore about benefits sanctions, the Guardian has reported.

The newspaper said Jobcentre “coaches” would be able to “mandate” zero-hours contracts if they thought the role was suitable for the claimant.

‘Reasonable’ contracts

A spokesman from the Department for Work and Pensions said claimants needed to do everything they could to get work.

He said jobseekers would be expected to take “reasonable” zero-hours contracts and carry on looking for permanent full-time work in the meantime.

They would not be required to sign up to “exclusive” contracts, which tie a worker to a single employer with no guarantee of work.

He said: “As now, if there’s a good reason someone can’t just take a particular job they won’t be sanctioned.

People face losing their benefits for more than three months if they refuse zero-hours contracts

“But it is right that people do everything they can to find work and that we support them to build up their working hours and earnings.”

He said the average zero-hours contract provided workers with 25 hours of work a week and could “lead to long-term opportunities”.

“Universal credit payments will adjust automatically depending on the hours a person works to ensure that people whose hours may change are financially supported and do not face the hassle and bureaucracy of switching their benefit claims,” the spokesman added.

Ms Gilmore said while she did not object to the principle of either universal credit or zero-hours contracts, she was “concerned” by the policy change.

“I also fear that if people are required to take jobs with zero-hours contracts, they could be prevented from taking training courses or applying for other jobs that might lead to more stable and sustainable employment in the long term,” she told the Guardian.

Unions last week called for action against zero-hours working.

This followed a study that showed around 1.4 million jobs involved contracts that did not guarantee a minimum number of hours.

The Office for National Statistics said most of the contracts were zero hours.

Under these contracts, people are not guaranteed work from one week to the next. But officials have pointed out that some workers could have more than one contract at a time.

People we know on Zero-Hour contracts are often faced with real problems about their wages.

It is hard to believe, given the chaos the system  is in, that things will go so smoothly that, “Universal credit payments will adjust automatically. ”

Very hard to believe.

And as for the “coaches” – who thought up that stupid name?



50 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. If an employer cannot guarantee to employ me then I cannot guarantee to turn up!

    Landless Peasant

    May 6, 2014 at 10:45 am

    • Absolutely bonkers. Seems like the DWP is doing this to require you to do 30 hours jobsearch whilst undertaking (potentially) full time hours work in the week. I guess this is so you can be sanctioned for not doing enough to look for work when you are actually working.

      Then there is sanctions for not turning up to silly “training sessions” at a provider when you are working…

      This is an administration nightmare – who is working and not declaring it? Increases the potential for hard up families to fraudulently claim benefits.

      Does the 16 hours rule still apply? This would mean having to sign off when exceeding the threshold despite only temporary, perhaps. Will increase the cost of claims and not actually save any money even if it tricks jobseekers out of their JSA.

      Universal Jobmatch

      May 6, 2014 at 5:52 pm

      • Having met people already submerged by the complexities of the existing system the new one looks indeed a nightmare.

        Andrew Coates

        May 7, 2014 at 12:17 pm

  2. Reblogged this on sdbast.


    May 6, 2014 at 10:56 am

  3. Exactly Landless. Somebody I know has to wait around for a text telling her when, and if, there’s work.

    It is absolutely ridiculous for anybody to be messed around like that,

    Andrew Coates

    May 6, 2014 at 11:22 am

    • Back in the day we had to queue at the factory gates every day at 5am to see if we were lucky enough to be chosen by the gaffer for a hard day’s graft.

      Old Timer

      May 7, 2014 at 5:19 am

      • After having done hard day’s graft:
        “Oh, we just found out you’re gay. No fucking pay. Now piss off, you’re blacklisted now.”

        something survived...

        May 9, 2014 at 8:45 pm

  4. Useful quote from The Guardian on zero-hours contracts:

    “How can you commit to training, undertake a proper job search, or agree to participate in interviews, when you are on a zero-hours contract and may be required to work at any time?”

    Well, that is the nature of the beast at today’s Jobcentre, a place where reason has long since flown out the window – that is why people are regularly being sanctioned for not being able to do more than one thing at the same time!

    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t!


    May 6, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    • People seem to think they only have secure employment rights in a job if they have a contract, this is simply untrue.

      Let me be perfectly clear, no employer is legally obliged to offer you a written employment contract, they are however legally obliged to supply if your still employed after a second month a written statement of employment particulars that sets out your terms of employment unless it has already been supplied via other paperwork given.

      You see its not a piece of paper that dictates whether or not your entitled to certain employment rights. These are ascertained in the actual physical course of your work, the paperwork merely affirms these statutory employment rights be it a written contract or the aforementioned written statement of employment.


      May 6, 2014 at 1:42 pm

  5. I notice none of these reports mention the claimant commitment you’ll have to do on your weeks with no hours and no income.
    And the topping up of your pay won’t be up to your wage £240 NMW, the top up will only be to £56/£71.

    Another Fine Mess

    May 6, 2014 at 1:31 pm

  6. Article from the Independent Monday 5th may 2014.

    Unemployed people who refuse to take controversial zero-hour contracts could face losing their benefits for up to three years, according to a report.

    The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) confirmed that sanctions could be imposed on people who turn down an offer of work even if it came with no guarantee of a full-time wage.

    This is possible because Universal Credit should adjust the levels of benefit automatically to correspond with the number of hours worked.

    People on zero-hours contracts are essentially “on-call”, working when and if required. Critics say they can be exploited by unscrupulous employers to reward or punish employees.

    In response to a freedom of information request, the DWP said: “We expect claimants to do all they reasonably can to look for and move into paid work.

    “If a claimant turns down a particular vacancy (including zero-hours contract jobs) a sanction may be applied, but we will look into the circumstances of the case and consider whether they had a good reason.”

    A jobseeker refusing work without a good reason could lose benefits for 13 weeks for a first offence, 26 weeks for a second and three years for a third one.

    Labour MP Sheila Gilmore told The Guardian: “While I don’t object to the principle of either universal credit or zero-hours contracts, I am concerned about this policy change.

    “I also fear that if people are required to take jobs with zero-hours contracts, they could be prevented from taking training courses or applying for other jobs that might lead to more stable and sustainable employment in the long term.”

    According to figures released last week by the Office for National Statistics, there are about 1.4 million zero-hour contracts in the UK.

    A spokesman for the DWP said someone with a “good reason” not to take a job would not be punished.

    “But it is right that people do everything they can to find work and that we support them to build up their working hours and earnings. The average zero-hours contract provides 25 hours of work a week – and can lead to long-term opportunities,” the spokesman said.

    “Universal Credit payments will adjust automatically depending on the hours a person works to ensure that people whose hours may change are financially supported and do not face the hassle and bureaucracy of switching their benefit claims.”


    May 6, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    • “The average zero-hours contract provides 25 hours of work a week – and can lead to long-term opportunities,” the spokesman said.”

      What about the fucking short-term possibilities of paying the rent and council tax?

      jj joop

      May 6, 2014 at 2:32 pm

    • As I said DPAK I find it hard to trust the claim that “Universal Credit payments will adjust automatically”.

      They can’t even get the basic system running yet!

      Andrew Coates

      May 7, 2014 at 11:36 am

  7. FAO Gaia

    Comment on the word “consent” regarding contracts!

    Then comment on the term “mandatory consent”!!


    May 6, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    • Im sorry Tobanem but where exactly is the term mandatory consent actually printed as without some form of context to go on I couldn’t possibly comment at this stage.


      May 6, 2014 at 5:37 pm

    • IDS redefinition of consent.
      Drag a girl into an alley, force booze down her throat. Punch her in the face till she’s an unconscious bloody mess. Ask her to say no. Fuck her. She has now consented.

      Reapply to the people of Britain. Repeat.

      something survived...

      May 9, 2014 at 8:48 pm

      • That’s what the whole JC/DWP/third-party collaborator ethos is – psychological rape!! Sign here or we will sanction you!

        Fuck the Jobcentre

        May 9, 2014 at 9:52 pm

  8. Don’t allow them access to universal jobmatch is a good start,the jobcentre are misleading people by telling them its read only,and they only enter the account in front of the person.but up to twenty “jobs” can be saved by the coach.

    people shouldn’t be put forward for these vacancies’.there’s no guarantee of a penny in wages in a week and the Dwp are saying they offer an average 25 hours a week and they should not be. many sensibly wouldn’t touch them and employers’ should not be allowed to have people on tap and abuse.such policies will only encourage these zero hours contracts and promote food bank use even more.


    May 6, 2014 at 5:04 pm

    • Yes, I believe advisors do have free access to deposit data in one of the files contained within a claimants UJM gateway account but like any computer system, they don’t need direct access inorder to deposit said data. I don’t know if still is the case but didn’t someone on this site mention before that you can switch this off ?

      Your quite right though that claimants shouldn’t allow access but then again they should do more also as, as sure as the sky is blue, DWP have twigged onto the fact that if a claimant carefully chooses their wording while creating a CV and profile and doesn’t apply through UJM itself that the program wont generate possible job leads.


      May 6, 2014 at 5:54 pm

      • I was told they couldn’t “help” me if they didn’t have access,so dumping anything in there as such if possible couldn’t be checked up on by them later.

        What they are telling people is that save jobs applied for as when redirected they wont show,they are not mentioning about it gives them access to see whats going on. however they continue to pressure people to comply.this also plays into the digital by default which the Dwp craves at the moment.giving access times they can monitor time spent also as well as other activity.

        Keeping a paper record of any jobsearch is paramount,in the case of a future appeal becomes necessary,providing the evidence on paper is easily presented at a hearing.

        Someones only commitment to these people is to look for work,report change and arrive on time for an appointment. not to support anything else they decide to just make up and attempt to control people


        May 9, 2014 at 4:58 pm

  9. Hey jobseekers: take a tip from Mike Sivier and wear shades 8) for all your 👿 JC/WP 👿 appointments 🙂

    Ray B

    May 7, 2014 at 8:37 am

    • Can’t do that – pawned and lost my shades years ago.

      something survived...

      May 9, 2014 at 8:50 pm

      • It’s a good idea though – never let them see the whites of your eyes – it would make it a lot easier to stand up to them and their is fuck all they can do about it! 🙂 🙂

        Jobcentre Staff are SCUM!!

        May 9, 2014 at 9:57 pm

    • It would really piss of the c!”£s too 🙂 🙂

      Jobcentre Staff are SCUM!!

      May 9, 2014 at 9:58 pm

      • Yeah, and don’t forget the garlic and the stinks bombs 🙂 🙂

        Jobcentre Staff are SCUM!!

        May 9, 2014 at 10:00 pm

  10. FAO Gaia

    My term “mandatory consent” is not actually printed – because the term itself is a contradiction in terms! I used the term to highlight this absurdity!

    When anyone enters into any contract, consent is required by all parties – otherwise the contract becomes an adhesion contract which is invalid in the eyes of the law.

    Of course, at today’s Jobcentre, fact and reason don’t matter. The real worls ceases at the door. Most people are ignorant of the law, and Jobcentre personnel take full advantage of this, and that is why you regularly get unemployed people being mis-advised and threatened with sanctions for non-compliance – eg, for not granting consent for access to Universal Jobmatch.

    As a further matter of interest on the matter of consent, even if a convicted offender is sentenced to Community Payback in the courts, the Judge asks the offender if he/she consents to that sentence – and that last fact pushes these “mandatory” Community Work Placements over the edge of reason!

    But that – like most other activities at today’s Jobcentre – is not unusual!!!


    May 7, 2014 at 12:48 pm

    • The position in the criminal courts regarding consent being required by convicted offenders when being sentenced to Community Payback, also pushes these “mandatory” zero-hours contracts over the edge of reason!!!


      May 7, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    • Adhesion contracts aren’t actually illegal and are far more common place than people probably realise. In the eyes of the law their only unenforceable when they favour one party grossly more than the other as so to speak. Basically put, you could say its where the vendor stifles the contractees opportunity to negotiate terms.

      Freely given consent is required on all contracts although their are instances of mandatory consent but the phrase bears little resemblance to the actuality and is more an implied contractual term enshrined in law.

      This community payback sentence bit you speak of, I am under the understanding that the consent part is because the accused is being offered, not given a lesser sentence but more of a alternative to the going sentence of imprisonment.

      Your quite correct about peoples ignorance being preyed on but its not exclusive to DWP and goes on all day every day by others such as BT, sainsburys, even your potential employer as every squirrel is looking for a biggest nut so it stands to reason why the one that has the need (claimant) is often trumped by the one that has the want (vendor) or simply put, CAPITALISM.

      This whole zero hour contract news is being blown out of proportion and yet again ignorance along with wordplay is its cause.

      The only thing that has or will change under UC is that where as a claimant use to be able to refuse an offer of work below 16 hours, they now or soon cant and that is it period. The system will work exactly as it does now when a claimant announces in any one week that they have done work and been paid for it (pound for pound after the first 5 system).

      No one is saying a claimant has to sign a papered document (contract) and can be made to, all of which I have explained on this main post and the previous one if you read it.

      As clearly the penny isn’t dropping for claimants I will put it another way


      If an employer isn’t compelled under law to supply a written contract, that by verbally offering work for remuneration in itself if agreed by both parties constitutes as a contract, that after 2 months of employment a written statement of employment particulars that sets out your terms of employment must be given, then why do they want you to sign another one so soon after in the first place, why bother ?


      They want/need something further from you that requires your legal consent or freely given agreement to.

      To sum this up the moment they voice they are offering you the position be it verbal or written prior to any papered document that forms a contract and that you agree to this offer either again verbally or in writing, YOU HAVE JUST BOTH FORMED A LEGAL CONTRACT and so did infact TAKE UP AN OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT. So whether or not you agree to another contract (papered document) with that said employer their after is mute from a DWP perspective as it is the employer who is now asking for a deviation from the initially agreed contract.

      Lastly as a matter of fact no claimant is under pressure, legal or otherwise to disclose any personal and or sensitive contents of their interview and or negotiation of terms and conditions with an employer unless they already agreed to such prior to with DWP (job outcomes do not constitute as prior consent, especially when we are talking personal and or sensitive data).

      DWP don’t hand out jobs, they hand out job leads. Applying for and actually getting are two different things, its a long road and a lot can go wrong along the way.


      May 8, 2014 at 10:44 am

      • Gaia

        All activities at Jobcentres favour one party more than the other! Sign here or else! Any Jobseeker able to negotiate terms is a rare breed!!

        So what you are saying is nothing will change when mandatory zero-hours contracts are unleashed, except sanctions – which are likely to soar!!!


        May 8, 2014 at 12:54 pm

      • “DWP don’t hand out jobs, they hand out job leads. Applying for and actually getting are two different things, its a long road and a lot can go wrong along the way.”

        Very true.

        You are unlikely to get a job if you do not show some enthusiasm for it.

        Andrew Coates

        May 8, 2014 at 3:45 pm

      • Let me get this right, claimants go to interviews day in and day out and don’t get a job but all of a sudden they do when its a zero hours contract, that because it states such that everyone gets the job no matter how many apply ?

        That DWP will all of a sudden just start handing out jobs like candy stating “no need to apply, you start Monday” ?

        Zero hour vacancies are no easier or no harder to get than any other job and they wont unleash as that horse has already bolted from that stable.

        Day one every claimant of unemployment benefit agreed to take up any reasonable offer of work that is more than 16 hours a week (under UC its any hours a week). DWP have since or will change the terms that this will now include any work less than 16 hours a week.
        Now no one even DWP are saying you have to do this, your absolutely free to walk away from your benefit agreement if you so choose to as contrary to what people think the government doesn’t owe us a living, legal or otherwise and no way on earth does paying stamp cover the cost so none of this I worked for years business as that’s easily chewed up once you dissect the payment into its various parts and have spent a year even less perhaps unemployed. Your contributions aren’t your own nest egg, its a pot we all put into even if we never require it and for the record the working public UK wide amount collected doesn’t even touch the sides of what is actually spent yearly on welfare so most is actually borrowed as is the case with many a government department.

        I wish their was an explosion the moment its enshrined in the halls of welfare and that DWP were giving it out like candy but the simple truth is its not going to happen as their use isn’t dictated by how many unemployed people their are so the amount and rate of growth will remain the same regardless.
        DWP don’t want claimants with loads of offers of work with no actual work as although it may make the stats look good, it still wont reduce the increasing cost of welfare.

        Their are certain things that this employer and even DWP are powerless to change and that is the rights afforded to the public under law period stroke period.

        If you or anybody else don’t wish to exercise those rights that is entirely yours or their decision to make.


        May 8, 2014 at 6:31 pm

      • Cool gaia , so I can just go and sign-off… 🙂

        Clay Mant

        May 8, 2014 at 7:04 pm

      • It’s true what you say, Gaia, nobody is FORCING us to sign-on; it’s not as if we are press-ganged of the street and dragged into the jobcentre and FORCED to sign-on at gunpoint 👿 If that were the case then those who disagree with the terms and conditions of their JSAG/Claimant Commitment, maybe, just maybe have a leg to stand on 🙂 But since we are NOT being forced to sign-on, so if we don’t like the terms and conditions stipulated by the JC/DWP to receive or free money, which in no way is covered by our paltry ‘stamps’ that we have paid in, then why not do the decent thing and sign-off. I think your thinking, gaia, however I suspect that Mr Coates and a few of the other shirkers who lurk on this site may have a (minor) difference of opinion 🙂


        May 8, 2014 at 7:13 pm

      • Thanks for the vote of confidence but is it really necessary to speak ill of others ?

        I have no idea who else you speak of but Mr Coates is not someone I would peg as a shirker. Think about it, he administers and moderates this website, trolls media feeds, government documents,etc , publish his work, all of which takes time and effort.


        May 10, 2014 at 8:41 am

  11. ken

    May 7, 2014 at 4:58 pm

    • Sign Seen At Jobcentre ”Job Alerts” [Some joker has written underneath] BE ALERT WE NEED ALL THE LERTS WE CAN GET


      May 8, 2014 at 7:28 pm

  12. Activist launches crowdsourcing campaign to sue Iain Duncan Smith over welfare reform ‘slavery’

    Campaigner Keith Lindsay-Cameron is hoping to mount the challenge against the new Claimant Commitment, which he believes is tantamount to modern day slavery.


    Obi Wan Kenobi

    May 8, 2014 at 7:48 am

  13. Lying Superbitch McVile has gone too far.

    Esther McVey launches superzero attack on the poor by forcing unemployed to take zero-hour contract jobs.

    The Tory employment minister says that when the new universal credit is brought in, poor people will have their benefits stopped for three months or more if they refuse to accept zero hours contracts.

    Jobcentre staff will decide when to force people into such jobs.

    Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Rachel Reeves said: “Just last month, Esther McVey said no one would be forced to apply for a zero hours contract.

    “Now we hear they’ll receive sanctions if they don’t.”

    Reeves called on the Government to “urgently clarify the circumstances” where Jobcentre staff will force people into zero hours work.

    And Shadow Business Minister Ian Murray, who represents Edinburgh South, said forcing the unemployed to take jobs with no guaranteed hours was “pushing people off the unemployment figures into destitution”.

    Murray said that in three Westminster debates on zero hours contracts, both Lib Dem Business Secretary Vince Cable and his Tory deputy Michael Fallon had insisted they had told Jobcentres not to hand out sanctions to people who wouldn’t take them.


    Obi Wan Kenobi

    May 8, 2014 at 8:05 am

  14. Heres a reprint of what I first posted on this zero hour contract revelation under this websites last pages titled Full List of Touts Running ‘Community Work Programme’ May 1, 2014.

    Its not a simple case of one shoe fits all and really does depend on what each and every zero hour contract states but none the less i will highlight the obvious.

    A contract is an agreement between two or more parties. The agreement should be mutually entered into via voluntary consent (meaning not forcible obtained) by both parties.

    A contract of employment sets out the employers terms and conditions along with what the employee can expect as is their statutory right under employment law.

    A papered contract does not dictate your statutory rights (employment rights), your condition of work dictates that. The contract merely affirms those statutory rights.

    An employer doesn’t have to offer a contract but must offer within two months of starting a written statement of employment particulars that sets out your terms of employment.

    You dont have to have a papered contract inorder for a contract to exist. By agreeing to carryout physical or mental work in receipt for remuneration (pay) forms the basis of a contract. Without an agreed mutual exchange (ie, work for pay), the contract is not legally enforceable and thus void in the eyes of the law.


    I quote “As soon as someone accepts a job offer they have a contract with their employer. An employment contract doesn’t have to be written down”.


    Your interview and agreement of terms and conditions is strictly a private matter between you and the other party/parties involved in said interview/contract. Outside third parties not included/involved in the process have no legal rights to its particular contents with regards you and the other party/parties meaning they are allowed to enquire with said employer as to the generic contents of said contract but not what was discussed personally and privately between the parties involved.

    So if you agree to work for said employer for remuneration regardless of not signing a contract, you have still formed an offer of contract if the employer accepts. If the employer doesn’t except (ie, you not signing a employment contract prior to work commencing), then it is the employer as its not a legal requirement to sign any contract and as such NOT the potential employee that has taken issue and couldn’t reach a resolve.

    Theirs a lot more to this but that’s enough for one day.


    May 8, 2014 at 6:43 pm

  15. Gaia

    What will be unleashed is a sharp increase in the number of claimants forced to apply for zero-hours contracts.

    I only wish there was a sufficient number of real jobs around in the first place, which people could obtain for themselves without the Jobcentre’s “help and support”.

    How many people end up in any kind of real employment via a Jobcentre?


    May 8, 2014 at 7:24 pm

    • A lot less now than a few decades back. Jobcentres advisors spend their time threatening claimants rather than finding and suggesting jobs for them to apply for. They don’t even have a concise list of all local jobs any more. They do not do their proper job. They have been turned into policemen for the state with the threat of dismissal themselves if they do not sanction a percentage of claimants for any reason they can think of.

      The abuse of the role of employment exchanges by this government to pursue a right wing political agenda is an utter disgrace. I suppose about the only consolation is that some of the poor bastards stuck in this unemployment horrorshow voted Conservative and LibDem last time round,and hopefully have now learnt their lesson. A year from now,we will see if they really have.


      May 8, 2014 at 10:23 pm

      • Lee

        Yes, you’re quite right, Jobcentres have got nothing at all to do with helping people back to work. It’s all a check on benefit entitlement, based on harassment, intimidation, mis-advising, trickery, chicanery and lies! What kind of basis is that for anyone to do business?

        When the “Restart” Programme began in the 1980s under the Thatcher Government, it managed to get a mere 1% of people back to work. It also managed to exceed its own performance targets by 50% by sanctioning as many people as possible. If someone failed the “availability for work test”, that was recorded as a “positive outcome”!!

        As I said before, the real world ends at the door of the Jobcentre.


        May 9, 2014 at 8:10 am

    • Apart from zero hours contracts there’s also the case of ”Self Employed” vacancies. This is being done as companies do not want the hassel of doing ID and right to work checks etc

      • For “Stowmarket Jobcentre Plus”

        What is your experience of “CTC” – that’s “Counter Terrorism Check” for the rest of us? These checks are creeping in to some job vacancies these days – including those advertised on Universal Jobmatch.

        How long does it take to do a CTC? Who carries it out? It sounds like a LOT of hassle!!


        May 9, 2014 at 8:47 am

      • It sounds dire.

        Andrew Coates

        May 9, 2014 at 11:43 am

      • First we came CRB checks…. then came Credit checks…. now we have Counter Terrorism Checks… all to stack a few shelves in the local Tesda 🙂

        Frustrated Jobseeker

        May 9, 2014 at 9:56 am

  16. Oh, and if anyone ever gains any kind of victory victory over the Jobcentre madhouse these days, and escapes being sanctioned, they can expect to be sentenced to everyday signing for the rest of their unemployed life – and so the treadmill goes on…and on…!

    It could be worse, mind you. We might have zero benefits before too long!!


    May 8, 2014 at 7:31 pm

  17. I expect “coaches” is simply a typo.
    This should of course read “cockroaches”.

    something survived...

    May 9, 2014 at 8:52 pm

    • I don’t like coaches and I don’t like COCKROACHES

      Vera Vomit

      May 10, 2014 at 8:00 am

  18. Tobanem not to mention their union has decided their members wont implement sanctions on fellow staff members when Universal credit is implemented.



    May 15, 2014 at 6:13 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: