Work Experience while on Jobseekers Allowance (WORK PROGRAMME)

saintjammyswine

donnajunkie wrote: »

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

No they are not, they are being trained in the job & environment. The company is putting them almost on the induction programme for new employees as well as some more formal training.

Sorry, dont know how to multi quote otherwise I would have put all the answers in one post!

Vincent_Buenisedes

saintjammyswine wrote: »

Your views are outdated and offensive to those who work hard to give others a better chance of improving their lives.

Considering the Flexible New Deal (which I was a "customer") only ended less than six months ago, my views can't really be described as outdated.
If you find my views offensive then all I can say is sorry, but the truth hurts. In my area the provider for the Work Programme is the exact same provider for Flexible New Deal, with the same sub-contractors, so unless they have instigated a massive change in direction regarding provision, I feel it is correct to come to the conclusion that it will be more of the same.

My opinion regarding free labour is formed by my own experience on FND. There was a logistics company in the next town over who would constantly take people on for just for four weeks, always promising that if you work hard they may offer you a position. Of course they never did and to see the dejection this caused to people who put their all in, and the nonchalalant manner the providers had to this carousel of free labour just showed the depravity of the scheme. And it will be repeated with the Work Programme.

saintjammyswine

Vincent_Buenisedes wrote: »

Considering the Flexible New Deal (which I was a "customer") only ended less than six months ago, my views can't really be described as outdated.
If you find my views offensive then all I can say is sorry, but the truth hurts. In my area the provider for the Work Programme is the exact same provider for Flexible New Deal, with the same sub-contractors, so unless they have instigated a massive change in direction regarding provision, I feel it is correct to come to the conclusion that it will be more of the same.

My opinion regarding free labour is formed by my own experience on FND. There was a logistics company in the next town over who would constantly take people on for just for four weeks, always promising that if you work hard they may offer you a position. Of course they never did and to see the dejection this caused to people who put their all in, and the nonchalalant manner the providers had to this carousel of free labour just showed the depravity of the scheme. And it will be repeated with the Work Programme.

I am sorry for your experiences but please dont tar all providers (main & subcontractors) with the same brush. Equally, not all employers see this as free labour, many ( all the ones I deal with) have taken this on at face value and are providing valuable experience. Many customers (clients, learners etc) that I deal with have not worked for many years for various reasons and so simply being in a working environment for a few weeks is vital to them in getting back or into work. The are differences in the Work programme compared to New Deal, the main one being the way providers are paid on results, not churning people through with no regard to the outcomes.

Caroline_a

As in all businesses there are good and bad. 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! A lot of it can be down to the wrong training officer, again there are good and bad staff everywhere. When I worked for training providers I can put my hand on my heart and say that I never used a placement that didn't have a genuine job available. Sometimes it took a while for the trainee to settle in and sometimes they weren't suitable, but they weren't just placements to put people for fun!

However, the more barriers people put up to training ('I only want to work until 3.30,' 'I'm not doing Saturdays', etc) then the less likely it is that you'll get a job. The thing that employers want from employees more than anything in my experience both in training schemes and also as an employer is flexibility. People who are not willing to be flexible are difficult to plan around, and in today's markets there are many people to select from!

I recognise that sometimes it isn't that easy, people with young children, carer's responsilbilities, etc, and most companies will make allowances for the right person, but if you aren't prepared to put yourself out on the odd occasion for the company, why should they do it for you?

imatt

As in all businesses there are good and bad. 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!

You mean providers such as A4e who were fined in 2009 in Hull for forging employers signatures? A4e still not only still have their contracts, they are the biggest in their field and its chairwoman Emma Harrison is now bizarrely David Cameron's employment guru / tsar. A4e have possibly THE worst record and reputation in the W2W sector.

To simply say there are good and bad businesses is not really good enough I'm afraid. If one could pick and choose a W2W provider, as you or I could choose a supermarket or a bank, then this argument would have legs. Indeed, a true customer has rights and should expect a consistent level of service. Not to rely on pot luck and the risk of being sent to a bad provider. He / she also has the right to take his custom elsewhere. In the W2W arena, providers know they have a captive audience so to speak. There is no choice. If there was real choice, there would be more consistency as people could go elsewhere. In short, they'd soon buck their ideas up!

As far as training is concerned, this is what many out of work are asking for. In general W2W providers are clearly not up to task with regards to training. Which is why there is an absence of real world training at many of these centres.

saintjammyswine

One of the main reasons that the training is subcontracted to those providers able to do it properly.

Each area has 2 providers (main contractors) so the customer can make representations to their JCP office but no guarantee on the outcome.

dark_lady

saintjammyswine wrote: »

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.

So they get favourable treatment just because they have living proof that they have had sex without contraception.

And the childless on these schemes (who lets face it have been sensible and not had kids that they cant afford) get shafted yet again.
I thought you said that these placements have to be treated like a proper job.
Well in a proper job in a business that trades on a Saturday then you would be expected to come in,children or not.

saintjammyswine

dark_lady wrote: »

So they get favourable treatment just because they have living proof that they have had sex without contraception.

And the childless on these schemes (who lets face it have been sensible and not had kids that they cant afford) get shafted yet again.
I thought you said that these placements have to be treated like a proper job.
Well in a proper job in a business that trades on a Saturday then you would be expected to come in,children or not.

But you wouldnt apply for a job that you know you couldnt attend, no? I am trying to point out that people are not forced to do things within the Work programme that bear no resemblance to the work the would apply for or do, given the opportunity. The employer has these shift patterns but not every employee can do every shift and as long as both parties are aware before an offer is made then arrangements can be put in place to accommodate if they are the best candidate for the job. The example was exactly that, an example, are you suggesting we treat people with kids differently? How about those who require time to pray? You are on very dodgy ground with your argument.

dark_lady

saintjammyswine wrote: »

But you wouldnt apply for a job that you know you couldnt attend, no? I am trying to point out that people are not forced to do things within the Work programme that bear no resemblance to the work the would apply for or do, given the opportunity. The employer has these shift patterns but not every employee can do every shift and as long as both parties are aware before an offer is made then arrangements can be put in place to accommodate if they are the best candidate for the job. The example was exactly that, an example, are you suggesting we treat people with kids differently? How about those who require time to pray? You are on very dodgy ground with your argument.

Seetec were happy to discriminate against me for being a carer. Did you not read my post upthread. i copied and pasted it over from my e mail account. My experience was used as part of a media campaign to raise awareness of difficulties and the discrimination that carers come across.

donnajunkie

embob74 wrote: »

Thank you for calling me stupid :rotfl:

i meant it is a stupid thing to do.