The Work Programme New Thread

kazzah60

Pont wrote: »

kazzah60 - My post was not aimed at you, or anyone else in particular (other than my quotes).

In my experience re: professional jobs, we do have several people who have had long standing professional careers and/or excellent academic qualifications. However, it still stands that if these people have not secured employment after a certain length of time they are referred to The Work Programme - we don't make the referrals - JCP do.

In such cases we very often have to suggest that after attempting to secure such jobs without success, they perhaps have to widen their search or perhaps to lower their sights. This type of suggestion doesn't (understandedly) often go down too well. Where does that leave us? We're charged with trying to get people back into work who very often won't accept that at present, these 'less desirable' occupations, are the only options available.

There is no excuse for not giving an applicant the common courtesy of a reply to an application - Work Programme or not. That would NOT occur in our office.

I do find your attitude rather patronising - my husband HAS to find a job - we have a mortgage of £700 per month to pay and the only money we have coming in is £600 occupational pension - so that doesn't even cover our mortgage let alone living expenses such as food, ultilities etc

we are currently living off our savings - so for the past 6 months of his 14 months being unemployed he has been applying for ANY jobs that will allow us to financially pay our bills

hence the application to Sarina Russo for the advisors job - I believe the salary was approximately £15,000 LESS than my husbands previous salary - I therefore believe that this would constitute " lowering his sights"

BUT - once he puts his qualifications and previous salary on any application form - employers who are paying less won't interview him because they don't believe he will stay in the job

what do you suggest he does? Lie on his application form?

I am well aware that the Job Centre refers people to the work programme - but it is a waste of money if the provider does nothing to help the client

as soon as my husband mentioned he had secured 3 interviews from applications his "advisor" hassled him constantly to tell her who the interviews were with and who his contact was at the empoyers - clearly this was so if my husband secured a job she could claim the appropriate payment for getting him into employment.

luckily I have a friend who also works for a WP provider who advised my husband NOT to divulge the details of the jobs and to withdraw his consent for sharing his information with Sarina Russo in roder that the inept and inadequate advisor could not claim a success on the back of my husbands hard work.

imatt

Pont wrote: »

Let's not forget, people are 'put on the Work Programme' after failing to find work after a determined length of time. If you believe that we, who work for The Work Programme, are out to make your lives difficult, this isn't so. Our office gets really good results, and I hope change peoples lives for the better.

It isn't a perfect system, but what is? If you feel that advisors are a nasty lot of *^&$%"£s, who want to sanction job seekers at a drop of a hat, this isn't so (in our case). We have to inform JCP if customers fail to attend - no exceptions. Very often we also state reasons why a job seeker should not be sanctioned albeit they failed to attend - this is usually because WP advisors actually get to know their customers!

Rough stats I know, but in our office 50% of customers are eager to find work and hate every day they are not working - the other 50% have been claiming for 10 or 20 years and have no intention of ever working.

It's a difficult job, and as already posted 'target driven' (which I believe is wrong). However, most of us employed by The Work Progamme are not smug gits, rather the case of 'there but for the Grace of God go I'!

Don't tar us all with the same brush - we don't tar all job seekers with the same brush!

The thing is, when you say people are on the WP after failing to secure work after X amount of time, one has to bear in mind that there are many 're-treads' or those who have been on such schemes more than once. They failed those having been through their doors X numbers of times. If previous schemes such as the New Deal and Flex New Deal failed using the VERY SAME WP providers (A4e, G4s, Ingeus, Serco), why should the WP be any different?

In fact, results in so far strongly indicate the WP is failing pretty spectacularly. A recent Ch4 News article suggests that A4e has only managed to secure long term work for just 3.5% of their clients!!! Many economists also suggest that the WP overall is not financially viable. As a result, some providers may have to go cap in hand to the government for a bailout!

this is usually because WP advisors actually get to know their customers!

I don't see how this is possible in some offices. Many clients have been seen by more than one advisor. Some clients have had several! This leads to another problem. Say one is assigned to the WP. The advisor they have been assigned to is perfectly civil and efficient. However, they see this advisor just once before given another advisor who sees them for all of 15 minutes. The third WP advisor they see sadly turns out to be incompetent, rude and surely! It can be the luck of the draw as to which adviser a client ends up with, especially as some advisors change so rapidly.

Few here are saying ALL WP advisors are terrible. Some are clearly not. However, the problem is that far too many are clearly in the wrong line of work. There also seems to be an awful lack of consistency as it seems to be pot luck as to whether you'll be treated with respect or not!

donnajunkie

Pont wrote: »

Rough stats I know, but in our office 50% of customers are eager to find work and hate every day they are not working - the other 50% have been claiming for 10 or 20 years and have no intention of ever working.

you say you are fair and decent and yet it seems from this you automatically assume anyone who has been out of work for a very long time does not want a job. also as you havent realised the obvious yet i will tell you it now. a large percentage of those who display negativity of some sort when they see you is because of being on the work programme and not because they dont want a job. you try being sent on things under the threat of sanction all the time and see how you feel about it.
if the jobcentre have to threaten people to get them to do something then that is a sign that it probably isnt very good.

donnajunkie

Pont wrote: »

In such cases we very often have to suggest that after attempting to secure such jobs without success, they perhaps have to widen their search or perhaps to lower their sights. This type of suggestion doesn't (understandedly) often go down too well. Where does that leave us? We're charged with trying to get people back into work who very often won't accept that at present, these 'less desirable' occupations, are the only options available.

may i suggest that when you do this you make a point of saying still continue applying for what you normally apply for as well. i say this because just like with your post here when this is said to someone they automatically think great you are lumping us all together and telling us all to go for the same thing, supermarkets, mcdonalds etc. it makes you appear incompetent that you are unable to help people get anything better than that.

KevInChester

Had to call them up to try and re-arrange a 'job search' appointment as I woke up today feeling ghastly, already been sick a few times today. Got to call again tomorrow in case it's a 24hr thing. Not self inflicted btw. Hate doing this even when I'm genuinely ill (first time called in sick) as I suspect they'll mess it up and I'll get in trouble!

donnajunkie

KevInChester wrote: »

Had to call them up to try and re-arrange a 'job search' appointment as I woke up today feeling ghastly, already been sick a few times today. Got to call again tomorrow in case it's a 24hr thing. Not self inflicted btw. Hate doing this even when I'm genuinely ill (first time called in sick) as I suspect they'll mess it up and I'll get in trouble!

i would have went in and puked on their desk. if they said you should have stayed at home i would say, what? and have you assuming i am just skiving? and possibly get sanctioned as a result?

KevInChester

Still feeling sick, if I was forced to go though I imagine the scenario would play out like above! Don't understand why I can't just do a jobsearch from home (like I usually do) for this one week. I think even the Job Centre allow for 4 weeks sickness when claiming (2 signing days not consecutive).

Pont

kazzah60 wrote: »

I do find your attitude rather patronising -
Certainly don't mean to be
my husband HAS to find a job - we have a mortgage of £700 per month to pay and the only money we have coming in is £600 occupational pension - so that doesn't even cover our mortgage let alone living expenses such as food, ultilities etc
we are currently living off our savings - so for the past 6 months of his 14 months being unemployed he has been applying for ANY jobs that will allow us to financially pay our bills

hence the application to Sarina Russo for the advisors job - I believe the salary was approximately £15,000 LESS than my husbands previous salary - I therefore believe that this would constitute " lowering his sights"
Yes it does. It also appears that your husband is trying his best to be adaptable to the awful job prospects out there at present.

BUT - once he puts his qualifications and previous salary on any application form - employers who are paying less won't interview him because they don't believe he will stay in the job

what do you suggest he does? Lie on his application form?
No - but perhaps I would leave details of previous salary off (just a suggestion)

I am well aware that the Job Centre refers people to the work programme - but it is a waste of money if the provider does nothing to help the client
Just as all job seekers are different, so too are advisors

as soon as my husband mentioned he had secured 3 interviews from applications his "advisor" hassled him constantly to tell her who the interviews were with and who his contact was at the empoyers - clearly this was so if my husband secured a job she could claim the appropriate payment for getting him into employment.
If your husband has not signed the 'agreement' he is not obligated to tell an advisor, or anyone else for that matter, anything at all - it's his business and nobody elses

luckily I have a friend who also works for a WP provider who advised my husband NOT to divulge the details of the jobs and to withdraw his consent for sharing his information with Sarina Russo in roder that the inept and inadequate advisor could not claim a success on the back of my husbands hard work.
As above - I agree[/QUOTE]

I can understand your anger, I would feel the same. However, some advisors do care and try their best.

Pont

imatt wrote: »

The thing is, when you say people are on the WP after failing to secure work after X amount of time, one has to bear in mind that there are many 're-treads' or those who have been on such schemes more than once. They failed those having been through their doors X numbers of times. If previous schemes such as the New Deal and Flex New Deal failed using the VERY SAME WP providers (A4e, G4s, Ingeus, Serco), why should the WP be any different?
I agree with your suggestion. However, I've never worked for previous schemes so have little knowledge on how they operated.

In fact, results in so far strongly indicate the WP is failing pretty spectacularly. A recent Ch4 News article suggests that A4e has only managed to secure long term work for just 3.5% of their clients!!! Many economists also suggest that the WP overall is not financially viable. As a result, some providers may have to go cap in hand to the government for a bailout!
I've read the same report. Our office is acheiving just under 24%. I suppose a lot depends on where in the country you're situated.


I don't see how this is possible in some offices. Many clients have been seen by more than one advisor. Some clients have had several! This leads to another problem. Say one is assigned to the WP. The advisor they have been assigned to is perfectly civil and efficient. However, they see this advisor just once before given another advisor who sees them for all of 15 minutes. The third WP advisor they see sadly turns out to be incompetent, rude and surely! It can be the luck of the draw as to which adviser a client ends up with, especially as some advisors change so rapidly.
If an office is organised properly, there is no need for this type of continual change.

Few here are saying ALL WP advisors are terrible. Some are clearly not. However, the problem is that far too many are clearly in the wrong line of work. There also seems to be an awful lack of consistency as it seems to be pot luck as to whether you'll be treated with respect or not!
I take on board what you're saying. However, it should be noted that some customers are not exactly very polite to advisors.

We're dealing with people (customers and advisors). Some are nice, polite and helpful - others aren't.

Pont

kazzah60 wrote: »

My husbands WP provider was Serco who sub contracted the work to Sarina Russo

My husband wouldn't have minded attending once a fortnight to offer evidence of his job searches - but his advisor had him attend 6 appointments in a 9 day period - all of which cost us money as car parking is very expensive where we live and his travel allowance amount to £1 for each trip
In which case this is unacceptable. Our customers attend once a week and are paid in full (including parking) for their travel expenses. We also try very hard to have advisor meetings on the same day as signing on so that expenses ar kept to a minimum.

we have no public transport so driving was a necessity and for each trip he was paying £3.80 for car parking as a minimum with only £1 travel being re-imbursed - and they couldn't offer any facilities we didn't have at home.

As above, just plain silly.