JSA or Work Programme?

LadyMissA

DebiT wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't realise you were asking a question as you just stated, "the WP is not illegal" - more of a statement.

But if you go here:http://www.workprogramme.org.uk/mandatory-work-activity-is-slavery-lawyers-mount-legal-challenge/comments/201111171756-1.html

you should get the gist of it.

there was a bit that said 'how can it be'? I still do not get how the WP in general is illegal. Surely if it was I wouldn't be on it. Or are you talking about work placements that you are forced to go on?

WPN

josie.d wrote: »

My temp position is due to come to an end at the end of the year making a total of 8 weeks from start to finish.

Before this I was on the work programme, but only for just over a week before landing this job role.

Assuming that I haven't got another job to go to afterwards (not looking great so far, but still a few that I'm waiting to hear from yet), would I go back on to JSA or straight back on to the work programme?

I am surprised they didn't contact you within those 8 weeks... is it right to assume that you told Jobcentre Plus you had a job when you signed off? If so they probably relayed that information. This said they probably wont get an outcome as its minimum 3 months for a short job outcome unless I am mistaken.

As soon as Jobcentre Plus refers you to the Work Programme you are with the provider for 2 years. Whether you sign off (getting a job or not) or worst case scenario... die, they will still try to contact you. I think your adviser at your WP provider were quite reasonable not to keep hassling you when you stopped your claim. Signing off doesn't cease their contact with you sadly, it appears all providers offer value added support while you are in work (basically its to find out details so they can claim job outcomes).

I take it you mean back to Jobcentre Plus... as you will be on JSA anyway? You should be invited to an interview at Jobcentre Plus to sort out your signing arrangements... then your provider will be back in contact for further appointments... sometimes its 2 weeks after this interview and in some cases providers are much faster to pick up where they left off (I guess it depends whether they think you can make them a lot of money... as you had a temp position I think you will fall into the group they will be most interested in)

Rumour has it that after 6 months on Work Programme you will be doing fulltime work for 6 months... although I am not sure if this is provider policy. I heard it was one provider and it only applies if the person wasn't in work during the first 6 months... so it might be different with other providers and in different areas.

WPN

DebiT wrote: »

Sorry, I didn't realise you were asking a question as you just stated, "the WP is not illegal" - more of a statement.

But if you go here:http://www.workprogramme.org.uk/mandatory-work-activity-is-slavery-lawyers-mount-legal-challenge/comments/201111171756-1.html

you should get the gist of it.

Its unlawful under many different aspects (people have argued the below):-

* lack of legislative enabler (i.e. no one is mandated on to the scheme, although told is mandatory)
* people are sanctioned for lateness or failure to attend (although without the proper mandating its optional scheme so sanctions are unlawful - it has to be an "employment programme" for sanctions to be applied to claims)
* Its a workfare scheme (against UK and European Law) - that is instead of being classified as "training" (like New Deal and Flexible New Deal) it requires people to participate in work, as a punishment for being unemployed
* As is not an employment programme... National Minimum Wage applies (only the placement aspects of the Work Programme) and obviously JSA isn't the same level as what fulltime NMW is.

Also some argue on these schemes that when doing fulltime work they can no longer Actively Seek Employment (i.e. during office hours) so breeching the laws of claiming JSA. Some see that being forced by the state to break the law is illegal in itself.

As stated, Mandatory Work Activity is being challenged (this scheme is set under Section 17A) the same law that would apply to Work Programme and CAP had regulations been written to that effect, but is being treated as such by DWP... meaning should MWA be successfully challenged its likely to apply to other schemes using such Section 17A.

red_devil

earlsky wrote: »

i have been put on work programme and its terrible, had to take part in The benifits of having a job session 3hours we were spoken to like 6yr olds, i,m 47 so i think i know this already. they tell you to put in for unsuitable jobs just to tick boxes, there is a site called refuse work programme they are saying its illegal, has anyone sent the letter to dwp just wondered what happens. there are lots of complaints about a4e.

They treat you like your at school agree.

OwenGriff

the answer to your question is both. You would make a rapid reclaim and be referred back to the work programme at the diagnostic stage 1-4 weeks. You will be referred there for a 2 yr period even if you sign on/off inside that period for the balance of time..
cheers

imatt

This Work Programme is gonna come crashing down like a ton of bricks very very soon

Before that happens, it'll be rebranded as FLEXIBLE WORK PROGRAM the same way New Deal became Flexible New Deal! Grayling and Duncan Smith will be loathed to admit failure just like their new labour predecesors. Even if it comes and slaps them in the face!

Should the WP fail (lets face it, it is fundementally flawed and is being run by a bunch of charlatans), Grayling and Duncan Smith need to do four things:

1) Explain why they thought it would work
2) Explain why they persisted with it
3) Apologise
4) Resign

All preferably on the floor of the HOC!

caffinated_geek_2

Am I the only one who approves of the work programme?
I was out of work for a while and found it a lot more helpful than the job centres.
I didn't need any numeracy, literacy or IT help so I went in once a week for about half an hour and even attended their job club a couple of times.
Looking for work itself can be expensive and the work programme pays you back the cost of travel to interviews, gives you envelopes and posts your CV's for you, has a phone to call prospective employers, has internet access and lets you print off your CV's there and they gave me a suit to attend interviews. They give you scratch cardsfor travel so unlike the job centre it doesn't cost anything to attend. At 30 mins every couple of weeks I wouldn't say it breeches minimum wage laws even if that were relevant.
As far as being treated like children is concerned I never had that problem, at the start I was asked questions from a list which were fairly basic and a couple of times I was asked to bring in a list of jobs I'd applied for but nothing that was any different from the job centre.
At the end of the day I wanted a job and I was willing to take all the help I could get.

SarEl

DebiT wrote: »

The Work Programme is illegal,

The work programme is neither illegal (which is actually a criminal offence and this is civil law) nor unlawful. It conforms to the law as it currently stands, and no amount of legal challneges changes that fact. Until such time as a legal challenge changes that fact the work programme is a lawful practice and refusing to co-operate has consequences.

And the basis upon which the legal challenge is fundamentally flawed, and will fail, because it is based on the principle of enforced free labour. The work programme is not enforced free labour - it is mandatory work experience and support to enable people to return to the job market, and it is only mandatory for those receiving certain state benefits which they have asked to receive in return from certain undertakings from them about seeking work and co-operating in support available to help them seek work.

And before you go running off about your personal opinions about the work programme, which I am not interested in, please note that not one thing I have said here is an expression of personal opinion about the rights and wrongs of the work programme - it is simple legal fact.

If the lawyers had had more sense they would have considered their grounds more carefully - they might have stood far more chance had they used the law instead of politics.

LadyMissA wrote: »

the WP is not illegal, how can it be? I am not on a work placement

DebiT wrote: »

I think I was talking to the OP, not you.

No you are not. In case you haven't noticed this is a public board, and when you are using it you are talking to everyone. If you want a private conversation take it to PM.

imatt

Looking for work itself can be expensive and the work programme pays you back the cost of travel to interviews, gives you envelopes and posts your CV's for you, has a phone to call prospective employers, has internet access and lets you print off your CV's there and they gave me a suit to attend interviews. They give you scratch cardsfor travel so unlike the job centre it doesn't cost anything to attend. At 30 mins every couple of weeks I wouldn't say it breeches minimum wage laws even if that were relevant.

Hmmm....well firstly many applications are made online these days. So the cost of envelopes and stamps will be very minimal.

Secondly, the phone (and often it's a solitarily phone) in most of these centre's is in full view and listening range of others. Hardly confidential. At least the JobCentre phones (plural) are in proper partly shielded booths.

Thirdly, as far as internet connections are concerned, well there is the library, cyber cafes and council run local job shops (with trained staff who know what they're doing), like the one not too far from myself. Apart from cyber cafes, all free!

Fourthly, a clothing allowance for interviews as far as I'm aware is still available from the Job Centre.

One problem with the WP is the companies charged with running it. They have performed WORSE that the JobCentre used to do in the past!

Considering how much the WP is costing to set up and administer, not much added benefit, is it?

DebiT

SarEl wrote: »

.





No you are not. In case you haven't noticed this is a public board, and when you are using it you are talking to everyone. If you want a private conversation take it to PM.

Dont get personal with me, if you had read the reply correctly, you would have seen that the person who spoke to me thought I was replying to her post, which I was not. If you get your facts wrong like this in your legal capacity, I pity your clients.