Benefit Busters Ch4 9pm

bo_drinker

A4e showed their true colours last night, in the real world questions would be asked of them. The boss squirmed big time at the end without answers to the reporters questions regarding the rubbish offers people were offered like the landscape job that lasted a week and the zero hour contracts. And another poster said they have been offered another contract. It is nothing other than passing the buck. And the staff last night were almost as bad as some of the unemployed on there. Still business will look up for them in a recession, a double edged sword as she said, keep taking the money.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You're my favourite poster by far ninky. I really wish I lived in your world, a world where you think the longterm unemployed could set up a company to help others back to work, and where you believe people when they say they want to work if only the job is right simply because they say so on a BBC tv programme.

Do you actually know any longterm unemployed? Have you ever been within 200 metres of a council estate, for example?

Honestly, it's soooooo cute.

I watched it for the first time last night. I don't know who was the more depressing group - the unemployed clients of A4E, or the otherwise unemployable dregs who worked for them.

my husband was one. yes i do know longterm unemployed. a few of our friends live in council estates (what's left of them - most sold off now). others are out of work or do dodgy minicabbing, selling of recreational substances or cash in hand jobs.

i agree there was very little difference between those working for A4e and those being made to attend their taxpayer funded courses. that is the point. some try to make out the system is meritocratic. as the grey eyed young pierced eared A4e employee said last night "you've got to look out for number one" or he might have ended up "like that lot".

better cute than condescending i say

nearlynew

bendix wrote: »

Caveat . . I quite liked the guy who got the job as a landscape gardener,............................. Shame it didnt work out for him - i suspect there's a story behind that story.

Like the landscape firm also being in on the scam, maybe?

ninky_2

nearlynew wrote: »

Like the landscape firm also being in on the scam, maybe?

yes like the way A4e said they had a "close relationship" with many of the agencies.

mutually beneficial arrangements i suspect.

how does A4e get these monopoly style contracts anyway? it's not exactly hard employing a few people to sit in a room, hand out some newpapers and felt tip pens and fill in an attendance register.

bendix

Quite likely nearlynew. If they are giving the candidates £90 dress allowance to buy a suit and £100 for the candidate to get a job, plus £100 goes to A4E for each successful plate, it's a right gravy train isnt it?

Does the hiring company get a bonus for hiring someone too, or do they get a portion of A4E's money under the counter?

It's nice to know my taxes are being put to good use.

highpark1

Inevitably there was a great deal missing from last night's Benefit Busters programme. We were told that A4e was contracted to occupy the clients for 30 hours per week. We were not told that this is meant to include a work placement. The original idea behind the contracts was that claimants would get experience of working and, possibly, be taken on by the employer permanently. Lots of A4e's clients are indeed out on placements, but few with private sector employers, who don't want the hassle. Most are hived off to the voluntary sector, and A4e pays the organisations small amounts to take them.
The pressures on space and the difficulty in usefully occupying clients results in people being sent out to roam the streets. Two former A4e clients in Hull complained to the local BBC office that they had been sent out to do quizzes, and that the whole "course" had been a waste of time.
Mark's job was intended to be permanent and so would have resulted in a job outcome payment for A4e. However, since he didn't stay in the job for 13 weeks, they would not have received the "rolled up weeks", the payments for the remaining weeks of the programme.
A4e were caught claiming agency jobs as permanent in Hull. We saw how these jobs are casual and so very unpopular with claimants; they also don't qualify as real jobs with the DWP, so the temptation to get the agency to tick the "permanent" box is very real.
A few months after this programme was filmed, an Ofsted inspection rated A4e's offices in the area only "satisfactory" and gave the figure for job outcomes as 18%.
A4e's PR people will know that this programme, together with last week's episode, are a disaster for the image of the company and its boss. But does it matter in the long run? The Conservatives are still reluctant to say that they would ditch FND, because it depends on the state of the contracts when they get into government. And for A4e the future lies abroad more than in Britain.

ninky_2

highpark1 wrote: »

. And for A4e the future lies abroad more than in Britain.

how so?

thanks for the added insight. i will be interesting to see what more comes to light in the rest of the series. i be A4e pr are livid....:T

bo_drinker

ninky wrote: »

yes like the way A4e said they had a "close relationship" with many of the agencies.

mutually beneficial arrangements i suspect.

how does A4e get these monopoly style contracts anyway? it's not exactly hard employing a few people to sit in a room, hand out some newpapers and felt tip pens and fill in an attendance register.

And the woman at the job centre said to the wannabe landscaper, " we have a lot of dealings with that firm I will ring them to see how you got on" I am sorry as soon as she said that he wasn't exactly on to a winner, she was on first name terms with the landscape people, I wonder why??
It was doomed to fail, no disrespect to the bloke who wanted the job but I think a lot of it is staged or someone knows things will go "tits" as he said, otherwise it doesn't make interesting viewing in some peoples eyes. Last week they got jobs at poundland on the run up to xmas, I bet they were all out by end of the Jan sales. It's a huge scam and I doubt 5% are successful in the long run.

rammy007

bendix wrote: »

Caveat . . I quite liked the guy who got the job as a landscape gardener, despite his appalling taste in women. Shame it didnt work out for him - i suspect there's a story behind that story.

Why wasnt his girlfriend looking for a job as well,the young girl whos dad had ran off seemed really nice,the newspapers some were looking through made me laugh "the star"!!!

bendix

rammy007 wrote: »

Why wasnt his girlfriend looking for a job as well,the young girl whos dad had ran off seemed really nice,the newspapers some were looking through made me laugh "the star"!!!

The young girl was the only one who came out of it with any credit. She is precisely the sort of person who should be prioritised for special help, and I suspect she will get a decent job quickly.

The vast majority of the 'clients', though, were completely unemployable. Sad but true.