Work Experience while on Jobseekers Allowance (WORK PROGRAMME)

donnajunkie

saintjammyswine wrote: »

One of the employers I work with run a shift system including weekends and nights. For the work experience we have arranged, they have agreed no night work, no work in the cold store and no sunday working. It is for 4 weeks, 30 hours per week.

they shouldnt have to do saturday either.

donnajunkie

saintjammyswine wrote: »

Why are people being exploited? They are improving their prospects of gaining employment, not losing anything as they continue to receive the same benefits, potentially getting free training.

they are doing the same job as the employed staff for no wages.

JoJox

I'm grateful for everyone's in put here. Negative and positive comments. I DO want to do Work exp but was ONLY worried if i didn't like it, IF I could leave and try somewhere else.

I love working :j and im fine with 9 to 5 but only worried they will take the p with me. That's all

x

dandelionclock30

Its all a load of rubbish in my opinion, the only things that will help jobseekers is proper jobs with prospects and good quality courses training and apprenticeships.
The work programme will fail because it cant get people into proper jobs because there arnt hardly any.So hey ho do the maths!
I think it must be soul destroying for those advisers employed by these providers because I couldnt lie and exploit a vulnerable group of people knowingly.I'd feel awful.

imatt

Since "these programmes" have only just started then I have no idea whether they are "failing" or not - and neither do you.

Actually, many DO expect the WP to fail.

See:

http://www.smf.co.uk/governments-flagship-back-to-work-programme-at-risk-of-financial-collapse-says-think-tank.html

Many expect the providers to struggle to make enough money as they will be paid by results. This leads to shortfalls such as not enough members of staff and too many clients. In this tougher economic climate, don't expect better results than Pathways to Work, ND and FND which were woeful! This is why many smaller, especially voluntary, organisations have been squeezed out of the Work Programme. Makes a total mockery of Cameron's 'Big Society'.

Posted again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wWvhWNzt4M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11NRmvVjd1Y&feature=related#

Here is a story that would be laughable otherwise:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039585/The-Learning-Zone-website-unemployed-littered-spelling-mistakes.html

A W2W provider, Avanta has a website so riddled with spelling mistakes, it's embarrassing. I hope they check their clients CV's better than they did their site!

People need to be aware. The very same companies (A4e, Reed, BEST, Ingeus, Serco, etc) involved in ND and FND have failed under these previous programs when they were making money hand over fist. Why does this govt feel they'll be any better under the WP? Also these companies previous failings are NEVER taken into account when they bid for new contracts! Iain D Smith has apparantly put pressure on W2W providers not to publish their latest WP results! Whether employed or not, as a taxpayer you should be concerned.

Those with an interest should listen to BBC Radio 4's Report on the WP. Listen here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014ggh3

becks1978

i have an apoitment this morning with best,ive been for my induction,now this is a welcome meeting at 10am,only thing is my son is in bed saying hes unwell,and he cant go to school,tipical.so ill have to leave him and go to this stupid welcome meeting,

embob74

donnajunkie wrote: »

i just used £10 an hour as an example. if you take a job that pays less than benefits then thats your choice. no-one, not even the government expects people to make themselves worse off. thats just stupid. if you prefer to work then you can do voluntary work and avoid making yourself worse off, if the only paid job you are able to find is one that pays less than benefits.

Thank you for calling me stupid :rotfl:
Obviously I earned more per hour than basic JSA would pay but as I then have to pay childcare, full rent and council tax and transport costs then I do believe a standard benefit claimants net income would be higher than mine.
Btw I have been a single parent on benefits so I am going from my own experience. I was not made to go back to work as I had pre-school children but I pushed myself to get back into work as I hoped it would be beneficial in the long run and I don't enjoy staring at four walls each day. Some JCP advisors were a bit useless but some were amazing and believed in helping people back to work.
I have to say I was a bit miffed when a friend of mine who CHOSE to give up her part-time job (as she was in debt and would be better off claiming benefits) moaned that she lost her wages for a week as she didn't attend a mandatory JC meeting. Her excuse was that her children were arguing and she couldn't face it. My thinking is that benefits are just that - a benefit NOT a right.
I totally agree with Caroline_a in that there are many who don't want to work. Unfortunately the OP came across as one of those people. If I was claiming benefits for a period of time I wouldn't be asking whether I had to attend a work placement. I would suck it up and do it whether I believed it would be beneficial or not.
When I was made redundant from an admin job I took a night job cleaning - did I think that would be helpful in my future job prospects? NO Did I enjoy cleaning toilets when I can barely face cleaning my own at home? NO
But I did it. It was a job.

saintjammyswine

Vincent_Buenisedes wrote: »

Most will gain no "experience" whatsoever, particularly as the xmas period 'tis upon us. - oh, you have experience of the projects I work with then?
All the retailers and logistics depots will be rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of all the unfortunate "customers" the grasping, inefficient and lacklustre providers will send to them. that is insulting in the most. What do you think I get from this? The logistics company I am working with are not gaining free labour. They are providing 4 weeks of experience. What is "experience" anyway - surely it can't take eight weeks to train someone to be at a certain place at a certain time, or to move some merchandise around a shelf!Many of the people I work with have not been in employment (if at all) for many years and so yes, it can take time to get them used to both being somewhere on time, having a structured day, dealing with colleagues. Also, as I am sure you know, within Logistics now there is voice activated picking, something that most large logistics companies are using but you cant be trained on outside of that environment, having this training will give them a huge advantage in the job market.

Your views are outdated and offensive to those who work hard to give others a better chance of improving their lives.

saintjammyswine

donnajunkie wrote: »

thats surprising. does that mean if someone gets sent somewhere that does 8 hours a day 5 days a week they will be able to get away 2 hrs early each day? its also an improvement from the old new deal where even though the rules only required the minimum of 30 hours the new deal providers took great pleasure in making sure the employer knew they could have people for 40 hours.

Example - Drivers at one employer work 10 hour days so the people on experience as drivers mates will do 3 days, those in the warehouse will do 4 x 8(ish) hour days.

saintjammyswine

donnajunkie wrote: »

they shouldnt have to do saturday either.

Why, that is what the working world requires, need to get people used to it. Those that cant dont have to for example those that only see their kids on a saturday are excused and we put them on a different shift.