Is it really compulsory to go on the Work Programme

saintjammyswine

GotToChange wrote: »

Well - we agree on something.


TBBT is an acquired taste, that's for sure. Being a bit of a science nerd, I adore it. (Was also v pleased when it (BBT) was an actual answer on University Challenge this week.. which I was able to answer - plus one other throughout the entire programme...)
Sheldon is a veeeerrrrry clever and will lecture a little with the least provocation - so when someone asks an innocent question, Leonard will try to stop them before it's too late and then groan as Sheldon starts reeling off statistics, data etc etc above and beyond the answer needed...

Back to topic - do you know how to get to the higher-ups in charge of the DWP/JCP "job" listings?
(I have several [STRIKE]complaints [/STRIKE]suggestions....)

I know I would like it, I have that sense of humour (yes everyone I do have one!) just not been able to catch it.

I don't I'm afraid but I would start with either the local or regional manager for JCP. Maybe look into how to list an advert as an employer and see if you get anywhere.

Re. agreeing etc. I understand people have bad experiences if this programme and this is widely reported (more than the successes). I just wish people would understand that on the whole (not always) it is done for the right reasons, with the best intentions. I have stated before I am proud of the work I and the people I deal with have done and the results that have come from it. That won't change through reading the negative stories.

LadyMissA

saintjammyswine wrote: »

OK, from my previous post ....

"One example of someone for whom this was of benefit was a guy that had been in trouble with the law (a lot) and so didnt get many interviews and fewer jobs. He came through the training, got employabiilty skills & a CSCS card. He then went through the work experience, found a trade (groundwork) he really enjoyed. The foreman of the gang was really pleased with him and he has been taken on. His mum told him to stop wearing his hi-viz and boots when coming home etc. and he told her that he wore it to prove to everyone else on the estate he could hold down a job."
That is one example. Another is from Logistics Co that provided 2 4 weeks experience and have taken people on through this route that both sides have said would not have happened without this.

we haven't all been in prison though. Some of us have had jobs for 20+ years and were made redudant and have been told 'we do not get the likes of you in here' and 'not sure what we can get you to do' etc

GotToChange

You are non-typical LadyMissA, that is why such remarks will be made. Sjs's success stories seem to be of those who really DO need a leg-up, hand-holding, real guidance/pushing (although don't they have probation officers?)...

The problem is that the providers then seem unable to separate people like you out from the majority and it all gets patronising and useless - and very very annoying.

LadyMissA

GotToChange wrote: »

You are non-typical LadyMissA, that is why such remarks will be made. Sjs's success stories seem to be of those who really DO need a leg-up, hand-holding, real guidance/pushing (although don't they have probation officers?)...

The problem is that the providers then seem unable to separate people like you out from the majority and it all gets patronising and useless - and very very annoying.

Thank you for noticing hehe

The WP however is meant to be tailor made for all of us. Surely if they help some and not others because we are well sorry to say it 'more professional' then that's not my fault but theirs. If I get my own job any day soon the WP still get £14k and for what?

Oh yeah well I patronise them as they can't answer my questions!

GotToChange

LadyMissA wrote: »

Thank you for noticing hehe

The WP however is meant to be tailor made for all of us. Surely if they help some and not others because we are well sorry to say it 'more professional' then that's not my fault but theirs. If I get my own job any day soon the WP still get £14k and for what?

This is it's biggest failing - and cannot be overcome I hate to say; that is because uemployed folks will come from all walks of life and each person has their own story and background as well a unique problems and worries, let alone the economic circumstances of the geographical area they are in.
I reiterate that this is more about lining the likes of EmmaPerson's pockets and crony-conservatism than it is about the individual person on the street trying to resurrect a stalled career (God forbid) or even find paid employment in anything (the preferred option for the Gvnmnt).

The fees are paid back-ended though so they don't get their £14K until "you" (for example) have been in work for two years. Now I don't know if that means - in the same job - or just work in general, i.e. a succession of temporary jobs.... Personally, I imagine (forecast) that the businesses* will not be in existence to collect on this particular gamble.
(Sorry sjs)






*Although Emma Harrison (I remembered her name"!) will probably survive/thrive - able, much like the cockroaches and jellyfish, to survive a nuclear war.

LadyMissA

GotToChange wrote: »

This is it's biggest failing - and cannot be overcome I hate to say; that is because uemployed folks will come from all walks of life and each person has their own story and background as well a unique problems and worries, let alone the economic circumstances of the geographical area they are in.
I reiterate that this is more about lining the likes of EmmaPerson's pockets and crony-conservatism than it is about the individual person on the street trying to resurrect a stalled career (God forbid) or even find paid employment in anything (the preferred option for the Gvnmnt).

The fees are paid back-ended though so they don't get their £14K until "you" (for example) have been in work for two years. Now I don't know if that means - in the same job - or just work in general, i.e. a succession of temporary jobs.... Personally, I imagine (forecast) that the businesses will not be in existence to collect on this particular gamble.
(Sorry sjs)

yes it's the 'we will help you hold down a job' bit they tell you that I do not get.

So if you get a job and get made redundant again (in those 2 years) no amount of support from the WP would have helped you 'hold it down'. This is all geared at people who walk from jobs and swap jobs like I swap my undies haha

What you could do when you sign off is not put you are going to work anywhere, just sign off (ok wont get the £100 back to work grant I guess) and then they have no idea where you are working. The WP may write to you but if you are not signing on then you wouldn't need to reply and then withdraw consent for any info on your to be shared with them and the DWP/JC on Inland Revenue wont be able to share info as to where you are working with them.................I think

GotToChange

I agree ^ - but don't doubt that they will have "ways and means" to find out where you work (notably through HMRC) - but certainly refusing to divulge the information yourself is a measure of control.

LadyMissA

GotToChange wrote: »

I agree ^ - but don't doubt that they will have "ways and means" to find out where you work (notably through HMRC) - but certainly refusing to divulge the information yourself is a measure of control.

on the jsa booklet it says you do not have to say where you are going to work & it's only for stats - guessing they want to know who is going into work and who is in fact just signing off

rhcp

GotToChange wrote: »

This is it's biggest failing - and cannot be overcome I hate to say; that is because uemployed folks will come from all walks of life and each person has their own story and background as well a unique problems and worries, let alone the economic circumstances of the geographical area they are in.

I thought that the whole reason of bring in the work programme and replacing new deal was so that each individual would be dealt with in the best way according to their circumstances. Getting away from the one size fits all and ensuring that each individual got the help that they personally needed. Obviously another ruse from the government.

LadyMissA

rhcp wrote: »

I thought that the whole reason of bring in the work programme and replacing new deal was so that each individual would be dealt with in the best way according to their circumstances. Getting away from the one size fits all and ensuring that each individual got the help that they personally needed. Obviously another ruse from the government.

The Government, any government can say what they like about any scheme but no provider would ever have the time to sit with each individual to find out all about them, their background, skills, companies where they have worked, why they think they aren't getting jobs etc as they do not have the time and there are far too many of us. Only just now have they bothered to look at my CV and are not interested at al in my references.

Plus no one at the providers is really skilled in this area. They are not skilled in recruiting or training at all. Surely they really need ex HR people to do this kind of job.

Of course they will all blame their 'system' and they will say it won’t allow them to do invidual programmes