We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.

DWP Flexible new deal scheme

123457

Comments

  • donnajunkie
    donnajunkie Posts: 32,412 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Jowo wrote: »
    I agree with you that part of what holds people back is having little to offer employers and I'm not a fan of many aspects of the USAs domestic policies. After all, you can work like a dog over there and not afford simple healthcare or housing.

    The requirement for those US states that implemented conditionality into their welfare system ( benefit claimants undertaking structured activities on a full time basis to qualify for it) meant welfare rolls dropped by 80+%. I don't think they'd have been so 'successful' if they allowed claimants greater discretion over their activities and offered training courses - it's only the compulsory nature of the participation that drives down numbers.

    But it does tackle the fact that one of the main causes of long-term unemployment is the fact that the longer a person is excluded from the workplace, the higher the likelihood that they'll never return to it - the loss of confidence, motivation and routine, the cushion of benefits, etc, all conspire to make the person unemployable as time progresses.

    But I also think part of what holds some people back is also that those who lack skills, experience and qualifications have unrealistic aspirations about the type of job and salary they can get. An academic analysed some IB claimants in Wales, found most had little or no qualifications, skills and experience, but that generally they were only interested in returning to work at twice the rate of the minimum wage, around £11 per hour then, which tends to be paid to the semi skilled, graduates and managers. They'd set themselves an entry criteria to re-entering the workforce that virtually none were likely to meet.

    Apologies to OP for going off thread, into policies, rather than specifically addressing their queries.

    the reduction of welfare claimants by 80% has been discussed before so i wont go into that again. however i am curious about that figure because the new deal does not have the same affect on the dole figures despite the majority of people hating it.
    why not have compulsory training then instead of compulsory courses like new deal that dont help the majority of people. yes i know because we need to get people into work now rather than later but new deal doesnt get people into work(well not paid work). in theory new deal is a great idea but it doesnt work out that way because most employers exploit it to get free labour and have no intention of employing anyone. i remember talking to someone who was on the course about placements. i asked where are you at. they said poundland. they then said they had been on the course before. i asked where were you at then. they said poundland.
    i agree the longer someone is out of work the harder it is to get them a job. however the main reason is because employers assume these people are useless. i once got asked in an interview why i had been out of work so long. i had been out of work for 3 months. that shows what attitudes employers have.
    yes, often people have unrealistic expectations but i dont think the answer is to lump them all into poorly paid jobs that no-one wants just because its the easy option. there surely needs to be something were at least some people can get training to get them upto a standard were they can get a better job. we often see stories on the news about skills shortages. well the issue wont be sorted by things like new deal.
  • donnajunkie
    donnajunkie Posts: 32,412 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Jowo wrote: »
    A more positive interpretation is that he could use his spare time in that period to undertake further business planning to give his business even greater chance of succeeding and that it introduced him to the reality of being self-employed - being exposed to risks without much state support. If he was confident about his business model, then he could have forgone the benefits and launched it once he got the funding.

    the impression i got was he already knew exactly what he needed to and it was just a question of funding which he could not get while on new deal. i guess he could have signed off but i'm not sure if he would have still been able to get funding if he wasnt claiming a benefit. i dont know how funding like what he was applying for works and i'm not even sure it was the princes trust he was applying to as i cant remember all the details. my gut instinct tells me it was them.
  • exprog
    exprog Posts: 413 Forumite
    i cant give you links or anything like that. i get that from watching various news stories and documentaries over the years.

    Quite right donna. Sometimes it really is breathtaking at how basic everyday information has to be explained.

    For one short and gentle view on the current position try this:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/income-inequality-is-at-a_n_259516.html

    There's loads of readily available other stuff to be read for anyone who can be bothered. The American Revolution was, to a considerable degree, about rich Americans wanting a system that kept them as rich as possible, including by the use of slave labour. People can do their own research on that.

    The only surprising thing is that America has the most democratically responsive system in the world but still tolerates such inequality. Possibly something to do with an appalling education system and people not bothering to vote.
  • Jowo_2
    Jowo_2 Posts: 8,308 Forumite
    yes, often people have unrealistic expectations but i dont think the answer is to lump them all into poorly paid jobs that no-one wants just because its the easy option. there surely needs to be something were at least some people can get training to get them upto a standard were they can get a better job.

    But why does the state have to do this? What's to stop a person from taking a job that they are suited to (even dull and low paid) and finding an evening, weekend or distance learning course themselves? What's wrong with a person investing their own time and money into their careers?

    I'm not trying to be ar*y but this govt can't run a bath so I'd worry about their ability to match candidates with suitable training courses that might lead to a better position and just wonder whether a person is better suited to identifying their own training gaps and resolving them rather than being levered onto a course just so the govt can massage numbers.

    What's wrong with someone who has no or low skills, qualifications and experiences from taking up low or no skilled work because, realistically, that's what they are probably best suited to?
  • donnajunkie
    donnajunkie Posts: 32,412 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Jowo wrote: »
    But why does the state have to do this? What's to stop a person from taking a job that they are suited to (even dull and low paid) and finding an evening, weekend or distance learning course themselves? What's wrong with a person investing their own time and money into their careers?

    I'm not trying to be ar*y but this govt can't run a bath so I'd worry about their ability to match candidates with suitable training courses that might lead to a better position and just wonder whether a person is better suited to identifying their own training gaps and resolving them rather than being levered onto a course just so the govt can massage numbers.

    What's wrong with someone who has no or low skills, qualifications and experiences from taking up low or no skilled work because, realistically, that's what they are probably best suited to?

    the state is doing it because companies wont. companies used to take on apprentices. now they dont. people can invest their own time but they dont have the money to invest.
    i think your second paragraph backs up the view about how new deal is bad.
    i am sure there are many people with no skills or qualifications that are capable of getting skilled and qualified but arent given the opportunity. if we just say oh well most people dont have any skills so just put them all into bad jobs that will be bad for the country. if skills shortages continue to get worse then companies that employ people like yourself may move abroad and then you would find yourself in a bad job as well. that is assuming you could find one as this would also cause increased unemployment.
  • busy_mom_2
    busy_mom_2 Posts: 1,391 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    The goverment can't pay to train everybody, they will train people who have been in the same industry for years but this job no longer exists ie all the manufacturing we have lost, provided they have been made redundant, a scheme called rapid response, each case is then looked at individually. If people have enough skills to get a job then they should take it and then fund further training by their own means or part time college.
    As for advisers making people apply for any job then yes after 26 weeks this is the case. You should only have restrictions on your hours if there is a valid reason to do so, not just a 9-5 job so i can go to the pub or no saturdays so I can go shopping. Yes if you refuse a job that says 'no experience' makes no difference what the job is you should be applying for it and risk losing benefit if you don't. jsa is paid for people who a looking for work not their ideal job.
  • GotNoMoney
    GotNoMoney Posts: 70 Forumite
    edited 27 February 2011 am28 7:02AM
    I got a letter today that says:

    "As you are aware you are nearing the end of your 12 weeks with your Step 2 provider"

    Then later on in the letter it says:

    "you will receive additional help for the next 20 weeks"

    Then further on it says:

    "Your first meeting is as follows" then it continues and says the meeting is to take place from 9AM to 4PM. Wow that is a LONG meeting!

    Just posting to ask... what the hell is this? :huh:

    As far as I know, I have been on this Flexible New Deal now for a year, well it feels like a year.

    I will have to ask the Job Centre when exactly I first started this Flexible New Deal, but this "Step 3" course says it lasts for 20 weeks, folks come on that is five months!

    I just finished "Stage 4 Step 2" and now they say there is a "Step 3". All I can say is... !!!!!!?

    Can anyone that has got this far on the FND (you finished Stage 4 Step 2) please tell me:

    1. How many hours a week does this "Step 3" entail?
    2. Do they refund your travel money?
    3. Do they give you any choice in the matter?

    When I join up with this company this will be the third company I have gone with over the last 8 to 12 months.

    The thing is this 5 month long "Step 3" will take me to around the beginning of August to complete - I am pretty sure I was already on the Flexible New Deal in August last year, meaning they are continuing this beyond 12 months?

    I might be wrong, maybe this 5 month stint with this new company takes me up to the full 12 months but it seems like a lot longer.

    Now the weather is getting better I might see if the local car wash has any jobs going... I am not working full time for £1.60 an hour, what do they think it is.

    I have already had my benefits stopped because my last provider failed to provide training for the 4 week course, so I ended up not doing it before the 12 weeks were up and ended up losing 2 weeks benefits. Now they want me to go to this meeting IN THAT SAME PERIOD! Can't I just tell them to shove it and re-schedule this meeting in a time period where I am actually claiming JSA? If I got sanctioned for 2 weeks (I did, this meeting falls inside those 2 weeks) then why are they even asking me to attend it? I am not signing on next time... well I can but they won't pay me it, it will just be a useless signature, although I think if I try to sign on next time they will tell me that.

    Honestly for the hideously low amount of money these weiners give to people (currently £67.50 a week which is not enough to cover even electric, gas and water bills for the average household) I think they need their mental health testing - I think I would rather just sign off and go begging.

    If you can go begging in a precinct and get anything more than £9.65 per day then you are already making more money than you were getting in benefits.

    Bottom line is they are pushing it too far, they have every expectation that I will just work my !!! off for the next 20 weeks as if I need the money that much... there are easier ways to get £67.50 a week, like begging on the streets.

    I would kindly ask anyone that is going to say "duh yeah just get a job and you'll make more than £67.50 a week" please post a link to the job you have in mind, it has to be in the Stockport area, thanks. This is an area never discussed in any of these FND places - the fact that there are more unemployed than there are job vacancies. If that is true then why are they "pushing" people into doing this sort of stuff when a certain percentage (I estimate over 90%) are not going to end up coming out of it with a job?
  • dugdale_2
    dugdale_2 Posts: 470 Forumite
    edited 27 February 2011 am28 11:06AM
    Got no Money
    Wow, how did you manage to find this thread as it's pretty old ?

    As far as I'm aware some FND providers subcontract out to different providers over the stage 4 period. The twelve months that you will be at stage 4 will be split into 3 steps, it looks as if you are now entering your 3rd step which will take you up to the end of your stage 4 period.
    I would imagine (but can't state for definate) that your first meeting last as long as it does for your step 3 provider to get to know some more about you, and you about them.
    You should ask the step 4 provider if you will be reimbursed your travel costs, again I would imagine that they would be reimbursed but can't say for definate that they would be as I don't know who this provider is.
    Yes you do have choice in this matter, you can attend and continue receiving your benefit or choose not to attend and have your benefit sanctioned.

    From what I read into your post you've been unemployed for about 19 months and also appear very bitter towards either Jobcentre Plus or your FND provider, just to let you know that I work at JCP and my mental health does not require testing and I don't consider myself a weiner either. I've answered your questions as well as I can now will let you know what I think.
    Perhaps you should sign off and get out your begging bowl as it's obvious to me that you're not serious about finding work, you're just making excuses such as "there are more unemployed than there are job vacancies in Stockport". Over 50% of those who sign on inStockport cease claiming within 3 months, over 65% by 6 months and over 95 % by 12 months so there must be at least a few jobs in your area.
  • donnajunkie
    donnajunkie Posts: 32,412 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    GotNoMoney wrote: »
    I got a letter today that says:

    "As you are aware you are nearing the end of your 12 weeks with your Step 2 provider"

    Then later on in the letter it says:

    "you will receive additional help for the next 20 weeks"

    Then further on it says:

    "Your first meeting is as follows" then it continues and says the meeting is to take place from 9AM to 4PM. Wow that is a LONG meeting!

    Just posting to ask... what the hell is this? :huh:

    As far as I know, I have been on this Flexible New Deal now for a year, well it feels like a year.

    I will have to ask the Job Centre when exactly I first started this Flexible New Deal, but this "Step 3" course says it lasts for 20 weeks, folks come on that is five months!

    I just finished "Stage 4 Step 2" and now they say there is a "Step 3". All I can say is... !!!!!!?

    Can anyone that has got this far on the FND (you finished Stage 4 Step 2) please tell me:

    1. How many hours a week does this "Step 3" entail?
    2. Do they refund your travel money?
    3. Do they give you any choice in the matter?

    When I join up with this company this will be the third company I have gone with over the last 8 to 12 months.

    The thing is this 5 month long "Step 3" will take me to around the beginning of August to complete - I am pretty sure I was already on the Flexible New Deal in August last year, meaning they are continuing this beyond 12 months?

    I might be wrong, maybe this 5 month stint with this new company takes me up to the full 12 months but it seems like a lot longer.

    Now the weather is getting better I might see if the local car wash has any jobs going... I am not working full time for £1.60 an hour, what do they think it is.

    I have already had my benefits stopped because my last provider failed to provide training for the 4 week course, so I ended up not doing it before the 12 weeks were up and ended up losing 2 weeks benefits. Now they want me to go to this meeting IN THAT SAME PERIOD! Can't I just tell them to shove it and re-schedule this meeting in a time period where I am actually claiming JSA? If I got sanctioned for 2 weeks (I did, this meeting falls inside those 2 weeks) then why are they even asking me to attend it? I am not signing on next time... well I can but they won't pay me it, it will just be a useless signature, although I think if I try to sign on next time they will tell me that.

    Honestly for the hideously low amount of money these weiners give to people (currently £67.50 a week which is not enough to cover even electric, gas and water bills for the average household) I think they need their mental health testing - I think I would rather just sign off and go begging.

    If you can go begging in a precinct and get anything more than £9.65 per day then you are already making more money than you were getting in benefits.

    Bottom line is they are pushing it too far, they have every expectation that I will just work my !!! off for the next 20 weeks as if I need the money that much... there are easier ways to get £67.50 a week, like begging on the streets.

    I would kindly ask anyone that is going to say "duh yeah just get a job and you'll make more than £67.50 a week" please post a link to the job you have in mind, it has to be in the Stockport area, thanks. This is an area never discussed in any of these FND places - the fact that there are more unemployed than there are job vacancies. If that is true then why are they "pushing" people into doing this sort of stuff when a certain percentage (I estimate over 90%) are not going to end up coming out of it with a job?
    i am only a month away from the end of fnd and i wasnt aware of there being step 1, step 2 etc. perhaps the thing you are going on next is workfare. the 9 to 4 thing could be an induction day. i am only speculating though. it also could be an extension of fnd as i believe they can extend it to 18 months. if you are still signing you still have to do what they say even during a period were you have been sanctioned. no doubt failure to do so would mean another sanction.
    ps things like workfare are becoming more tolerable to do than ever seeing as the government have told jobcentres to start sanctioning everyone. if you are on workfare you wont be signing on. so therefore unless you do something wrong you are safe from being sanctioned.
  • dmg24
    dmg24 Posts: 33,925 Forumite
    GotNoMoney wrote: »
    I would kindly ask anyone that is going to say "duh yeah just get a job and you'll make more than £67.50 a week" please post a link to the job you have in mind, it has to be in the Stockport area, thanks. This is an area never discussed in any of these FND places - the fact that there are more unemployed than there are job vacancies. If that is true then why are they "pushing" people into doing this sort of stuff when a certain percentage (I estimate over 90%) are not going to end up coming out of it with a job?

    Duh yeah just get a job and you'll make more than £67.50 a week.

    JCP references SOO/58149 and SOO/58122

    Good luck in your new job!
    Gone ... or have I?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 348.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 452.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 240.9K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 617.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 175.7K Life & Family
  • 254.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.