The Work Programme New Thread

Spamfree_2

donnajunkie wrote: »

first you need massive job creation and then something that matches people to those jobs. back to work schemes dont work.

Have you had personal experience of a work Scheme?

donnajunkie

Spamfree wrote: »

Have you had personal experience of a work Scheme?

yes..........

imatt

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.

Then I strongly suggest you go away and do some research into how these schemes were run in the recent past.


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.

This is irrelevant if If most people posting on this thread do not live in the town or city your office is located. And if you will not reveal which provider you actually work for. In effect you are saying that the whether a client gets good service from the WP is pot luck and is no more certain than the throw of a couple of dice! I have debated with a number of others in the W2W sector and it's never THEIR provider, office or fellow colleagues who perform poorly. They must be very fortunate or lucky with their performances!


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.

Then many offices are clearly not organised properly!

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.

Pont wrote: »

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

The BIG difference is that WP advisors are supposed to be PROFESSIONAL! They should remember that and act accordingly. WP Clients are not in the same position. If a hotel receptionist were to be spoken to in an abrupt manner by a guest, should he / she start a slanging match with this rude customer, even though the customer was in the wrong originally?

Part of the problem is many advisors are less qualified, experienced and educated than those they are charged with helping. And this imbalance has surely gotten worse with the number of people made redundant from the public sector. Some of these people will have a university education, along with clerical and managerial experience. They then find themselves on the WP being given a generic template CV riddled with spelling errors for example. The WP advisor thinks this is fine, the client sees it as useless right away. This often leads to conflict.

You refer to those attending the WP as customers. Right. In that case I'm sure you'd agree that customers have rights. As such, 'customers' on the WP as with any other business or organisation have the right to demand better service. Because right now, they ain't getting it!

Pont

imatt...
Why would I research how a myriad of schemes were run in the past? Good grief work 'schemes' in various guises have been with us for near on a 100 years (at least!). It's probably more useful if I spend my time trying to find customers the jobs that they want!

How can it be irrelevant to point out that actually our office seem to get better results than many others out there. It's totally relevant as perhaps customers in offices that aren't finding employment, are being treated badly etc. etc., should perhaps be asking questions and/or complaining about the service (or lack of it) they are receiving - hence the reference to badly run offices.

I most certainly wouldn't get into a 'slanging match' with anyone, colleagues or customers. In my opinion when people resort to such, they've lost the argument before they start.

Everybody in our office has a least a first degree but that alone doesn't make advisors 'professional' - it also takes a heap of old fashioned commonsense along with professional qualifications to do the job properly.

I totally agree that 'customers have rights'. However, let's not forget along with rights come responsibilities.

I can of course detect the anger on these pages regarding The Work Programme. I just wanted to provide an alternative view that we're not all c*%p - some of us do care and believe we do act in a respectful and professional manner.

Btw, I cringe when customers turn up at our office having had CVs written by a previous provider and they're peppered with spelling mistakes!

donnajunkie

Pont wrote: »

How can it be irrelevant to point out that actually our office seem to get better results than many others out there.

a relevant thing to consider would be how bad is unemployment in your area compared to the rest of the country.

donnajunkie

Pont wrote: »

Btw, I cringe when customers turn up at our office having had CVs written by a previous provider and they're peppered with spelling mistakes!

when you are sent on a scheme you can guarantee that the adviser wont like your cv and will redo it without exception, even if it has been done by a professional.

Pont

donnajunkie wrote: »

when you are sent on a scheme you can guarantee that the adviser wont like your cv and will redo it without exception, even if it has been done by a professional.

Guarantee - no. Yet another sweeping statement! Would you be happy if I posted a sweeping generalisation of job hunters (there are many examples of how the unemployed are viewed on this site!). I expect not - and I wouldn't do so.

If a customer comes to me with a well written, well presented CV, I'm more than happy to leave well alone. However, I've come across many customers who have paid so called 'professionals' to have their CV written and quite frankly a 10 year old could have done better.

I think on that note I'm going to bow out gracefully. All I've tried to do here is to give an alternative view, all I've received by way of reply is a whole lot of sweeping generalisations and incorrect assumptions.

I, hopefully, will continue to try my best in my job. I wish all of you much success with your job searching be it with (or without) the help of your various Work Programme providers.

looby75

donnajunkie wrote: »

when you are sent on a scheme you can guarantee that the adviser wont like your cv and will redo it without exception, even if it has been done by a professional.

not in my case. Every person from the WP who has seen mine has said it's spot on and they can't think of anyway to improve it. I have 4 versions of it and each one has been looked at and I've been told they are all fine.

Then again my latest "adviser" (the 4th in 7 months) is a 17 yr old on an apprenticeship :cool::rotfl:

looby75

Pont wrote: »

I, hopefully, will continue to try my best in my job. I wish all of you much success with your job searching be it with (or without) the help of your various Work Programme providers.

Can I sign up to your programme pretty please. You at least sound as though you know what you are talking about!

donnajunkie

Pont wrote: »

Guarantee - no. Yet another sweeping statement! Would you be happy if I posted a sweeping generalisation of job hunters (there are many examples of how the unemployed are viewed on this site!). I expect not - and I wouldn't do so.

If a customer comes to me with a well written, well presented CV, I'm more than happy to leave well alone. However, I've come across many customers who have paid so called 'professionals' to have their CV written and quite frankly a 10 year old could have done better.

I think on that note I'm going to bow out gracefully. All I've tried to do here is to give an alternative view, all I've received by way of reply is a whole lot of sweeping generalisations and incorrect assumptions.

I, hopefully, will continue to try my best in my job. I wish all of you much success with your job searching be it with (or without) the help of your various Work Programme providers.

of all the people i know who have been on a scheme they have always had their cv redone. in my own experience all that happens is they rearrange it and possibily reword some of it. i dont need an expert to know if my cv is poorly worded or has bad spelling.