What is 'The Work Programme' ?

donnajunkie

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Can anyone tell me please, how long you have to have been unemployed to be sent on these placements?

a jobcentre worker told me long term refered 3 months after last thing they did. under 18's after 6 months, under 25's after 9 months and over 25's after 12 months.
so whatever group you are in once you have done 2 years you will get 3 months breathing space before starting another 2 years. thats assuming they dont have something else lined up for people to do next.

saintjammyswine

donnajunkie wrote: »

people dont like knowing they have or are being exploited by a company who has no intention of employing them.

Which company was that?

Also there is no promise of a job at the end of it, never has been.

The idea is to try and give people as many opportunities as possible to improve their chances of gaining employment.

saintjammyswine

donnajunkie wrote: »

people just see the flaws and unfairness involved. its not fair to call people moaners because they take issue with these things.

Why? They are happy (sort of!) to moan about the lack of opportunity and when something is put in place to improve the previous system and try and help all they do is moan about how unfair it is. I do everything I can to help as many people as I can. The employers are happy because they can put something back, people who think it is simply free labour are kidding themselves. The amount of time & money in the form of developing training programmes, mentoring etc. that the companies I deal with have invested and not all of them are large nationals, it would be cheaper to literally just hire people at minimum wage.

donnajunkie

saintjammyswine wrote: »

Which company was that?

Also there is no promise of a job at the end of it, never has been.

The idea is to try and give people as many opportunities as possible to improve their chances of gaining employment.

when i said company i wasnt talking about a provider. around here, tesco, poundland, the local council are all organisations famous for useing people with no intention of employing them. they are just the most known ones. there are many more. i remember going for an interview for a placement at a small company that cleans car radiators. at the beginning they said they were desperate for someone as they had just one bloke working by himself. later on the placement bloke told them that they could have me for upto 18 weeks. they responded by saying even after 18 weeks they couldnt guarantee me a job. i thought wait a minute you said earlier you were desperate for someone. so if i were to be worthy enough to keep for 18 weeks then you should be employing me. infact if you are decent you shouldnt be exploiting the ability to have me for free for 18 weeks. you should be employing me as soon as you know i am capable. so when the placement bloke was driving me back to the centre i said i didnt want to do it and why. he wasnt happy. also the working hours clearly broke the maximum hours limit but the placement bloke didnt care. he came out with cra*p about but you will have loads of breaks and you cant count them.

saintjammyswine

The placement is for up to 8 weeks at an employer as part of the Work Programme.
In that case the JCP should have withdrawn straight away and refused co-operation with the company in a meeting with the local partnership manager.
Behind the scenes there is a lot of work involved in setting these up, it really would be easier & cheaper for companies to just employ someone at minimum wage.

donnajunkie

saintjammyswine wrote: »

In that case the JCP should have withdrawn straight away and refused co-operation with the company in a meeting with the local partnership manager.
Behind the scenes there is a lot of work involved in setting these up, it really would be easier & cheaper for companies to just employ someone at minimum wage.

it wasnt to do with jcp it was the provider. they had a policy of getting people out on placement as soon as they could. ideally they would like there to have been a chance of a job but their priority was getting people on placement and keeping the companies happy with a constant flow of people.
i find it hard to believe that it is more costly for an employer to take someone for free than employ them. if that were true then they would only ever take people if they were genuinely looking to employ them and they would employ them pretty quickly.

donnajunkie

saintjammyswine wrote: »

Why? They are happy (sort of!) to moan about the lack of opportunity and when something is put in place to improve the previous system and try and help all they do is moan about how unfair it is. I do everything I can to help as many people as I can. The employers are happy because they can put something back, people who think it is simply free labour are kidding themselves. The amount of time & money in the form of developing training programmes, mentoring etc. that the companies I deal with have invested and not all of them are large nationals, it would be cheaper to literally just hire people at minimum wage.

yours sounds like a utopian back to work programme. it is not the reality i see. i doubt if its the reality many other people see as well.

System

I have a friend who has the misfortune of having a placement at Poundland, she wouldn't mind if there was a cats chance in hell of a job but she's already heard they've been doing it for a while and she'll be replaced by others on the programme.

red_devil

the last scheme i went on they could not find placements for all. We had to spend 4 weeks in the classroom doing crosswords and quizzes etc. It was nothing about getting a job it was dont know what else to do with you so will keep you busy in a classroom.

saintjammyswine

donnajunkie wrote: »

it wasnt to do with jcp it was the provider. they had a policy of getting people out on placement as soon as they could. ideally they would like there to have been a chance of a job but their priority was getting people on placement and keeping the companies happy with a constant flow of people.
i find it hard to believe that it is more costly for an employer to take someone for free than employ them. if that were true then they would only ever take people if they were genuinely looking to employ them and they would employ them pretty quickly.

So I've been lucky with the employers I have dealt with then. No, not all have jobs to go to, shame but there you go. They have all, without exception made sure the candidates have had the same induction (where possible due to the nature of some of the businesses) as employees, have sat down over hours of meetings and devised a work plan that ensured they cover as much of the work the company does as possible in the 4-6 weeks they have them. Have ensured all staff are aware of the programme and briefed all supervisors & shift managers about the programme and where it fits into their plans. At the end of it all candidates register with the agency the customer uses, all have an interview for at least practice (all are interviewed in the same way so as not to make people feel bad if they dont get a real interview) and when there are vacancies these candidates are given priority. This is because they are the people that have turned up, completed the pre-training element and have learnt aspects of the business that would form part of an induction/training period anyway.