The Work Programme New Thread

donnajunkie

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

The whole PBR system is broken, and has been since the start, once they :

- coin~it~in [make money on] from the 'creaming cohort'
- they ignore the huge majority of [lose money on] hard~to~help and 'parking cohort'

The evidence for the above is that of the funds the treasury made available a year ago, are as predicted 9 months ago are currently being clawed back. A massive £248 mi££ion allocated to the Work Programme was underspent in the 2012-2013 year. Allocated to contractors / providers, but those WP contractors have not earned the money so it goes back to the treasury.

They pick off the cream and leave the hard to help parking group foundering. It's exactly the hard to help parking group that are stuck on benefits forever, and suffer all the additional mental / health / economic disadvantages of being a 'forever claimant' - a relentless rise in a group ignored by the badly constructed PBR system sentences this parking group to unwillingly remain on benefits. Those who are / were in the cream group however as evidenced by this thread, mainly find their own employment regardless of the woeful help offered by welfare to work training providers. The system of payment by results was never designed to help the hard to help parking group and until it is redesigned and fully funded I hold out little hope that contributors here will escape the WP.

i know quite a few people who are on it and none of them have been parked and yet it hasnt improved their chances of finding employment. its better to be parked than being hassled all the time in my opinion. the more you are in there, the more courses they make you do, the more chances they will have to sanction you.

donnajunkie

imatt wrote: »

And this is the problem with having an ideologue in charge of Work and Pensions in the form of George Duncan Smith. He is wedded to ideological policies even if they are less efficient and more costly than had they otherwise not existed.

Take week signing. A ridiculous policy flawed on two fronts.

Firstly, it will create more paperwork. Signing that bit of paper every day will create a mountain of signing forms. And I thought this was a government promising to reduce paperwork and red tape?

Secondly, as donnajunkie suggests it will require more staff members to see more people more often AND to process even more paperwork.

An ideological 'get tough' policy that ends up failing from the off due to being ill thought out in the first place.

Of course, trying to explain this to Smith will doubles be as effective as trying to drive to the Moon!

yes, in a time of austerity you would think the logical thing to do would be to look to reducing signing to once every four weeks, not increasing it.

AP007

donnajunkie wrote: »

yes, in a time of austerity you would think the logical thing to do would be to look to reducing signing to once every four weeks, not increasing it.

or do signing online once a week where you log in to your own acct and tick a box say you agree you have not worked and are still looking for work etc

donnajunkie

AP007 wrote: »

or do signing online once a week where you log in to your own acct and tick a box say you agree you have not worked and are still looking for work etc

that would be convenient but there could be potential problems. for example what if you sign online and somehow their system doesnt register it without you knowing. they wont have it because they need to be sure its you. that is why they ask the questions they do when you sign on.

AP007

donnajunkie wrote: »

that would be convenient but there could be potential problems. for example what if you sign online and somehow their system doesnt register it without you knowing. they wont have it because they need to be sure its you. that is why they ask the questions they do when you sign on.

what questions do they ask that they cant online?

Like DOB - you can key that in the same as say it in person

dktreesea

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

"i'll rather seek employment than waste my time on pub or charity jobs via the Work Programme and gain NOTHING"

I suspect what that poster actually meant was "I'd rather expend my time and energy on trying to find work myself than waste it etc"

Nothing wrong with that attitude in and of itself. Working 38-40 hours a week leaves just the evenings and weekends free to continue job-searching. That won't be attractive to some people but that's precisely what I'd be doing

The work programme isn't about the participant gaining anything. They have already gained, as in they are already getting paid their jsa. It's about satisfying those in paid work and paying taxes that the recipients of jsa are not getting to stay at home doing nothing.

donnajunkie

AP007 wrote: »

what questions do they ask that they cant online?

Like DOB - you can key that in the same as say it in person

yes, of course it is flawed. even face to face signing you could get your mate to sign for you and give them the answers they need. i think another part of it is to interfere with a persons chances to do fiddly work. if it was online you could do it on your mobile phone while at work.

donnajunkie

dktreesea wrote: »

The work programme isn't about the participant gaining anything. They have already gained, as in they are already getting paid their jsa. It's about satisfying those in paid work and paying taxes that the recipients of jsa are not getting to stay at home doing nothing.

yes indeed, what a bunch of idiots.

AP007

donnajunkie wrote: »

yes, of course it is flawed. even face to face signing you could get your mate to sign for you and give them the answers they need. i think another part of it is to interfere with a persons chances to do fiddly work. if it was online you could do it on your mobile phone while at work.

but then I could have a job as my signing time is 9.10am and I could be working at a 10am start somewhere and that's the same.

donnajunkie

AP007 wrote: »

but then I could have a job as my signing time is 9.10am and I could be working at a 10am start somewhere and that's the same.

yes i know. i find they tend to try and make alot of appointments/signing in the middle of the day. this is to maximise the chances of annoying those who want to fiddle. personally i have never had a time earlier than 10.30am or later than 2pm. i am not saying what they do is perfect i am simply saying what i think they do and why.