Work Experience while on Jobseekers Allowance (WORK PROGRAMME)

Caroline_a

DebiT wrote: »

Really? because to listen to some people on here you would think that there are plenty of jobs, just lazy scroungers who dont want to take advantage of them.
If there arent jobs for them to send people to, as you admit, then Then what the hell is the point of the Work Programme?

Still waiting to hear your solution to people who are long-term unemployed. Or is your point that there is no point?

WPN

Caroline


Reading through this topic... you are one of the most active...

Nope. Your experience is of one training provider and your version of it. Mine is of 7 different providers and many hundreds of jobseekers. Don't assume.

This is very interesting on the “don't assume” front... You are using your experience of 7 different providers you have worked for.... fair enough; however, the “many hundreds of jobseekers” from YOUR view point. I find it a bit trivial how all these people are programmed to say the same phrase word for word.


I have never worked for a provider – lets get that in the open. Care to name the 7?


I have read so much feedback from jobseekers on this forum, CAG, facebook and more jobseeker biased websites, and although opinion can vary a lot, when it comes to these mandatory schemes the feedback is all the same... people are clever enough to know its a gravy train where contracts are awarded regardless of previous results.


New Deal had many faults but wasn't too bad, the FND and Work Programme is another matter entirely. The Work Programme is FND re-branded with more “work placements”.

I worked with both 16-18 year olds and adults

Are those aged between 16 and 18 not adults? Where do we draw the line here... adult at 16? 18? 21? Does this mean those in that age group are treated as children by you under the scheme?

providers are only facilitators - only the jobseeker can get a job

So true, but they are paid by Government to help people find work when they previously have been unsuccessful

Sigh. I promise you, there are a whole load of people who pay lipservice to jobhunting, but actually don't want a job.

The topic is about work experience on the work programme - why are you trying so hard to force your views of "not everyone on the schemes (that you have experienced) wants a job" on to everyone else?


As an (former) employee working in partnership with Jobcentre Plus you should realise the political dynamics of the situation and stop offloading your negativity on to genuine jobseekers to tarnish their intentions of finding work as “scroungers”.


The last time the Tories were in power they outlawed the “something for nothing” “benefit culture” - people have to Actively Seek Employment each week to be able to claim unemployment benefits. I know the “type” you are referring to quite well... but its not an issue for genuine jobseekers but one for you (partners to DWP delivering a public service on behalf of the Government) and Jobcentre Plus staff.


If these people can continue to claim but not find work, it shows some level of corruption... I am sure if you search these forums (or the internet) you will hear many stories of genuine jobseekers who are being ill-treated by Jobcentre Plus, for example only applying for 9 jobs in one week not 10. As they didn't apply for the 10th its reported as refusing to apply for work (what about the other 9?)


When I was on New Deal you did have the few who claimed to be in and out of prison, using the schemes to broker the trading of Class C drugs and those just because they have tried work once, feel that the laid back attitude of being unrealistic and over selective, was fine and fair. For some reason I never considered the rest of participants to be the same just because of a very small minority.

And there are good and bad training providers - I have seen both sides of the coin, but the bad ones don't tend to keep their contracts for very long!

Is this a subcontractor contract? To my knowledge there has only ever been one welfare-to-work contract termination by DWP.

Why is it that so many people can't understand that businesses can't magic up jobs simply because people are unemployed?

I think you are misunderstanding the problem... in the last 5 years, many employees have been forced to undertake more duties (for example, 2 people doing a 3 person job). Some got a pay rise for this or other incentive, others told if you cant adapt to change there are many others who will be happy to take the job... but this meant less jobs available.


Official statistics are useless... because 16 hours is classified as full time. I personally feel full time requires at least 25 hours per week, and 16 hours is part time.


So where you clearly are right to an extent about businesses cannot solve unemployment (full employment) it has been the “magic” by businesses which lost the jobs, much to outsourcing abroad and getting employees to undertake more tasks. Big business is about pleasing the shareholders... we all understand that businesses are designed to profit and those with shareholders (especially in public companies) that own the company must get a nice dividend... but at what cost?


I would do exactly the same, increase profit as much as possible etc. however its by doing many of these things which reduces the jobs available – these businesses are therefore responsible.

imatt

Those who state these W2W providers provide training. What level of training is it? You see, we can all be versed in the art of newspeak, aka spin and equine waste matter and call anything training! I attended A4e some years ago under ND. I was told I was on a media and design course. This is news to me I thought as I along with 90% of other clients was doing !!!!!! all!

Not only did the course not exist, it NEVER existed! I only found this out due to seeing my name on a whiteboard along with several others under various course headings. Again, none of these courses exist. This was a prime example of fraud and deception. After all, if they can tell lies to me and others, what were they telling OFSTED? Even then, the likes of A4e score poorly with OFSTED gaining a satisfactory score at best.

One convenient method of sidestepping and deflecting such criticism is to reclassify what counts as 'training'. Thus job search in many cases becomes 'employment training'.


Years ago, when job clubs existed and were run by the Job Centre, they had better results than the current crop of W2W providers.

dark_lady

Caroline_a wrote: »

Of course I did!! I could have lost my job! but why did your husband not have adequate pain relief, surely that's a medical issue, not an employment one?

He was given as much pain relief as was possible and was resticted by actually having to follow the instructions on the packaging. There was and still is much more to his condition than organizing pain relief.
Your attitude shows that not much has changed.

dark_lady

WPN wrote: »

Caroline


Reading through this topic... you are one of the most active...





This is very interesting on the “don't assume” front... You are using your experience of 7 different providers you have worked for.... fair enough; however, the “many hundreds of jobseekers” from YOUR view point. I find it a bit trivial how all these people are programmed to say the same phrase word for word.


I have never worked for a provider – lets get that in the open. Care to name the 7?


I have read so much feedback from jobseekers on this forum, CAG, facebook and more jobseeker biased websites, and although opinion can vary a lot, when it comes to these mandatory schemes the feedback is all the same... people are clever enough to know its a gravy train where contracts are awarded regardless of previous results.


New Deal had many faults but wasn't too bad, the FND and Work Programme is another matter entirely. The Work Programme is FND re-branded with more “work placements”.





Are those aged between 16 and 18 not adults? Where do we draw the line here... adult at 16? 18? 21? Does this mean those in that age group are treated as children by you under the scheme?





So true, but they are paid by Government to help people find work when they previously have been unsuccessful





The topic is about work experience on the work programme - why are you trying so hard to force your views of "not everyone on the schemes (that you have experienced) wants a job" on to everyone else?


As an (former) employee working in partnership with Jobcentre Plus you should realise the political dynamics of the situation and stop offloading your negativity on to genuine jobseekers to tarnish their intentions of finding work as “scroungers”.


The last time the Tories were in power they outlawed the “something for nothing” “benefit culture” - people have to Actively Seek Employment each week to be able to claim unemployment benefits. I know the “type” you are referring to quite well... but its not an issue for genuine jobseekers but one for you (partners to DWP delivering a public service on behalf of the Government) and Jobcentre Plus staff.


If these people can continue to claim but not find work, it shows some level of corruption... I am sure if you search these forums (or the internet) you will hear many stories of genuine jobseekers who are being ill-treated by Jobcentre Plus, for example only applying for 9 jobs in one week not 10. As they didn't apply for the 10th its reported as refusing to apply for work (what about the other 9?)


When I was on New Deal you did have the few who claimed to be in and out of prison, using the schemes to broker the trading of Class C drugs and those just because they have tried work once, feel that the laid back attitude of being unrealistic and over selective, was fine and fair. For some reason I never considered the rest of participants to be the same just because of a very small minority.





Is this a subcontractor contract? To my knowledge there has only ever been one welfare-to-work contract termination by DWP.




I think you are misunderstanding the problem... in the last 5 years, many employees have been forced to undertake more duties (for example, 2 people doing a 3 person job). Some got a pay rise for this or other incentive, others told if you cant adapt to change there are many others who will be happy to take the job... but this meant less jobs available.


Official statistics are useless... because 16 hours is classified as full time. I personally feel full time requires at least 25 hours per week, and 16 hours is part time.


So where you clearly are right to an extent about businesses cannot solve unemployment (full employment) it has been the “magic” by businesses which lost the jobs, much to outsourcing abroad and getting employees to undertake more tasks. Big business is about pleasing the shareholders... we all understand that businesses are designed to profit and those with shareholders (especially in public companies) that own the company must get a nice dividend... but at what cost?


I would do exactly the same, increase profit as much as possible etc. however its by doing many of these things which reduces the jobs available – these businesses are therefore responsible.

This is one of the most sensible posts on this thread.

Caroline_a

WPN wrote: »

Caroline


Reading through this topic... you are one of the most active...





This is very interesting on the “don't assume” front... You are using your experience of 7 different providers you have worked for.... fair enough; however, the “many hundreds of jobseekers” from YOUR view point. I find it a bit trivial how all these people are programmed to say the same phrase word for word.


I have never worked for a provider – lets get that in the open. Care to name the 7? Nope, my CV is nothing to do with you. I no longer work in the training/employment field. I have my own company.


I have read so much feedback from jobseekers on this forum, CAG, facebook and more jobseeker biased websites, and although opinion can vary a lot, when it comes to these mandatory schemes the feedback is all the same... people are clever enough to know its a gravy train where contracts are awarded regardless of previous results.


New Deal had many faults but wasn't too bad, the FND and Work Programme is another matter entirely. The Work Programme is FND re-branded with more “work placements”.





Are those aged between 16 and 18 not adults? Where do we draw the line here... adult at 16? 18? 21? Does this mean those in that age group are treated as children by you under the scheme? 16 to 18 year olds have different regulations for employment and training. For example 16 - 18 year olds could not be left alone when I worked in a training environment therefore had to be treated differently.





So true, but they are paid by Government to help people find work when they previously have been unsuccessful





The topic is about work experience on the work programme - why are you trying so hard to force your views of "not everyone on the schemes (that you have experienced) wants a job" on to everyone else?


As an (former) employee working in partnership with Jobcentre Plus I wasnt - don't assume you can second guess my experience you should realise the political dynamics of the situation and stop offloading your negativity on to genuine jobseekers to tarnish their intentions of finding work as “scroungers”.


The last time the Tories were in power they outlawed the “something for nothing” “benefit culture” - people have to Actively Seek Employment each week to be able to claim unemployment benefits. I know the “type” you are referring to quite well... but its not an issue for genuine jobseekers but one for you (partners to DWP delivering a public service on behalf of the Government) and Jobcentre Plus staff.


If these people can continue to claim but not find work, it shows some level of corruption... I am sure if you search these forums (or the internet) you will hear many stories of genuine jobseekers who are being ill-treated by Jobcentre Plus, for example only applying for 9 jobs in one week not 10. As they didn't apply for the 10th its reported as refusing to apply for work (what about the other 9?)


When I was on New Deal you did have the few who claimed to be in and out of prison, using the schemes to broker the trading of Class C drugs and those just because they have tried work once, feel that the laid back attitude of being unrealistic and over selective, was fine and fair. For some reason I never considered the rest of participants to be the same just because of a very small minority.





Is this a subcontractor contract? To my knowledge there has only ever been one welfare-to-work contract termination by DWP. I know of several providers that didn't have contracts renewed




I think you are misunderstanding the problem... in the last 5 years, many employees have been forced to undertake more duties (for example, 2 people doing a 3 person job). Some got a pay rise for this or other incentive, others told if you cant adapt to change there are many others who will be happy to take the job... but this meant less jobs available.


Official statistics are useless... because 16 hours is classified as full time. I personally feel full time requires at least 25 hours per week, and 16 hours is part time.


So where you clearly are right to an extent about businesses cannot solve unemployment (full employment) it has been the “magic” by businesses which lost the jobs, much to outsourcing abroad and getting employees to undertake more tasks. Big business is about pleasing the shareholders... we all understand that businesses are designed to profit and those with shareholders (especially in public companies) that own the company must get a nice dividend... but at what cost?


I would do exactly the same, increase profit as much as possible etc. however its by doing many of these things which reduces the jobs available – these businesses are therefore responsible. So if you want to put the blame on businesses, would you rather they went bust?

Tired of arguing these points. Good training schemes can be a great way for job finding, for those who are prepared to work hard and not judge what it's going to be like before they even start.

I have recently employed 2 people. both on a part time basis. I would say that the standard of the other 160-odd applications was for the most part appalling, with poor spelling, huge gaps in CVs, some just emailed to say they wanted the job, no CV, no indication of their experience, etc. So if those people (all of whom applied via the ad on the JobCentre website) take nothing away from training schemes, they should at least learn how to put an application together. There certainly seems to be massive gaps in training there.

saintjammyswine

tanith wrote: »

Can someone tell me if they will take into account the hours you would be available for instance if you had to take a small child to school and pick them up? Would they find work experience placements that took that into account.. or maybe pay for childcare if not?

Yes on the project I run, cant say for the rest of the country. Childcare, travel and replacement care costs are included in the Work programme for candidates.

saintjammyswine

donnajunkie wrote: »

ok so its 3 times 8 hour shifts and one 6 hour shift. or their finish time varies and they always ensure they dont do more than required. either way your 4 times 8 ish hours was misleading.

Oh for @@@#s sake, how pedantic do you want to be?

I it was (for the last time), AN EXAMPLE.

saintjammyswine

DebiT wrote: »

Yippee, free training to stack shelves.:T

Oh I see, you know about the scheme I run then? No, so give it up, there is no shelf stacking involved.

saintjammyswine

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

People are not getting jobs due to lack of work experience, they are not getting jobs because there are hardly any going!! So how does getting people to work in poundland help all the long term unemployed? It doesnt!
F*** the taxpayer, combined the unemployed have paid billions in taxes. They should be helped into proper jobs with proper prospects not be expoilted by Cr**** jobs!

Right, when has poundland been mentioned?
Many of the people I work with have never worked or paid taxes(direct) and come from families with 2 or 3 generations of worklessness.
I can give a 100% guarantee that not one person I deal with on these projects is exploited in any way and once the pilot is finished and it is in the media, you can read all about it.