ESA work focused interviews

rogerblack

Sugar_Coated_Owl wrote: »

Kind of silly calling it the 'work' group then.

The group names and short descriptions are basically meaningless.
What is important is the legal tests to get into each group.

They may have had the intent of making the descriptions accurate when they started out on the legislative process - but it's very much not this way anymore.

For example - if you have an injury and can't put your hands into either shirt pocket, you are entitled to the support group.

But if you have multiple complex disabilities that will essentially prevent you ever working, if you don't quite meet the criteria for the support group, you can end up at best in the work-related group.

Someone can be found fully fit, for example if they use a wheelchair, and can't walk, can slowly wheel themselves over 200m. Only work for 90 minutes at a time before becoming utterly exhausted. Have difficulty conveying or understanding more than simple messages from strangers. Once every couple of months has a sudden accident where they lose control of their bowels. Can barely operate a washing machine. Several hours a day can't cope with trying to talk to new people.

The unfortunate part is that the policy is formed on the basis that the one sentence descriptions are accurate.
'The work group is for the less severely ill, who are likely to be able to with support find work in the near future'.

On this basis - it's not quite unreasonable to time-limit the benefit to a year if it's contributory.

But there are many who will be in this group for life due to their condition (absenting legislative change), and whos likelyhood of employment is tiny, even if they are 'encouraged' by stopping their benefits. (only if they have no other income, and are not part of a couple)

Cpt.Scarlet

rogerblack wrote: »

This is less true than it once was.
While you cannot actually be required to work, you can now be put in the work program, (if in the WRAG), and compelled to do any 'work related activity' - that may now include actual work placements (not technically work) for an unlimited period.
In addition, this could for example include making up dummy applications for jobs, writing CVs, ... as long as you don't actually have to submit them.

In principle, this is only if 'reasonable' - but the appeals process is at best unclear.

Roger

Whilst I agree that the government are doing their best to blur the edges, I think it is important to make it clear to anybody reading this thread, the legislation remains unchanged, and even if forwarded to the Work Programme, claimants in the WRAG are not required to work or seek work.

nannytone_2

Sugar_Coated_Owl wrote: »

Kind of silly calling it the 'work' group then.

but it isnt called the work group.

its called the work related activity group, and that is self explanatiry.

people in the WRAG are expected to undertake activity that will possibly lead to employment WHEN they are deemed fit for work

Sugar_Coated_Owl

Thank you for clarifying although I don't understand the need to type in bold.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Sugar_Coated_Owl wrote: »

Thank you for clarifying although I don't understand the need to type in bold.

- visually impaired / helps the poster 'nannytone' to see what s/he has written / is writing

Sugar_Coated_Owl

Ah okay that makes sense. Apologies for thinking you were being rude.

rogerblack

Cpt.Scarlet wrote: »

Roger

Whilst I agree that the government are doing their best to blur the edges, I think it is important to make it clear to anybody reading this thread, the legislation remains unchanged, and even if forwarded to the Work Programme, claimants in the WRAG are not required to work or seek work.

True.
The differences in the actual activities required can be minimal though.
It's just that it can't be actually applying for jobs, or doing normal paid work.

Richie-from-the-Boro

Cpt.Scarlet & Rogerblack, tis UC that has [STRIKE][workfare][/STRIKE] fully fledged mandatory work activity, see UC Conditionality and sanctions.

a.   Full conditionality. This will be the default option for recipients including lone parents and couples with older children. Recipients in this group will be subject to the same requirements to actively seek work and to be available for work as they would under Jobseeker’s Allowance.

b.   Work preparation. Recipients will be in his group if they are disabled or have a health condition which means they have limited capability for work at the current time. They will be expected to take reasonable steps to prepare for work.

c.   Keeping in touch with the labour market. Recipients will be in this group if they are a lone parent or lead carer in a couple with a child over one but below age five. They will be expected to attend periodic interviews to discuss their plans for returning to the labour market.

d.  No conditionality. Recipients will be in this group if they are: 

- disabled or have a serious health condition which prevents them working and preparing for work 
- a lone parent or lead carer in a couple with a child younger than one
- or have intensive and regular caring responsibilities. 

People receiving Universal Credit but earning above the relevant threshold would also not be subject to conditionality.

NOTE : To save MSE'ers asking which parent of the two will have to work and which one will not. Conditionality is applied to them as an individual, they will have themselves to decide and nominate which one is the lead carer.

The half fledged [STRIKE][workfare][/STRIKE] mandatory work activity already exists and came into effect 56 weeks ago with the JSA Regulations 2011 the conditions and sanctions are here.

It used to be 'work-related activity component' now its activities, such as training or condition management programme's which is the new name for YTS / ETC of the Thatcher era, and as was the case then [see rogerblack] they can now be asked to undertake work based training [placements and schemes] activities leading to NVQ's many of which will be delivered by that prime friend of the CONdems called G4S.

- Assessment phase lasts 13 weeks, main phase starts week14
- two different groups, WRAG and Support Group
- WRAG[/U - 23% - get extra money over the basic rate for completing their work-related activity component
- Support group - 9% - get even more extra money over the basic rate for support, voluntary work is allowed, but not required
- 68% are found capable of work

Here's the handbook for those who want it

Personal thoughts .........................

[STRIKE]Workfare[/STRIKE] ' - the mandatory [forcing unpaid work on people] work activity ' does exist, is costing the state and we taxpayers £5 billion, yet they have never created a single job, they simply replace paid work. Once again the main player as above is the CONdems friend G4S. Here this magnificent Tory flagship company failed to even manage its minimum 5.5% target, and continues to scream loudly for more punishment for its young 'trainees' along with requests to Government to stop benefits altogether for trainees who do not do as they are told.

Can you remember the recent Jubilee fiasco with young people sleeping under bridges in London and even they were working FOC with no wages, or the protests that cased Holland & Barrett is to withdraw from the workfare program, and you will notice that a year after Poundland started [STRIKE]workfare[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]exploiting[/STRIKE] 'training' young people their annual profits juped by 27% to £40+ billion ? .. .. .. I did.

I mentioned ET & YTS above, here as was the case in the early 80's Government hides the true youth unemployment figures It moves long term unemployed young claimants from JSA to 'workfare' some time later 97%ish return to the unemployed register but they are now classed as non-long term employed. That way government lose 500,000 long term unemployed people from the register altogether for a year, and when the invisibility component of workfare wears off after a year they reappear as non-long term, thats Paul Daniels statistical massaging at his best.

YTS & ET in the 80's worked to the extent that the Thatcher derived judgment was based on an honest moral intent of getting 20% into full time self sustaining properly paid employment within 52 weeks. The first 26 weeks was fully funded certificated training designed into the program and funded by the taxpayer with the next 26 weeks training costs underwritten by the employer. The final outcome was nearer 30% achieving the desired outcome in the better run schemes, this was in large part because the motivation was to get people jobs & training.

The current JSA & proposed UC intentions however are it seems to me quite different. It's based on the old 'work pays' theory [STRIKE][albert macht frei][/STRIKE] that's buried deep in the DNA of the Tories, but unlike the 80's when they introduced it - its just not funded this time, there is no money for proper training, there is no money to pump prime employers into taking responsibility for training people who have significant help needs. There are no controls over how people are treated, so the barriers to employment remain now in the JSA market, and those same barriers will be evident in the even more draconian UC market.

Added Sun 22nd July 2012 - the current half fledged [STRIKE][workfare][/STRIKE] model is run by Prime providers & Prime Contractors. The problem with this so called Chris graying PBR system is that it can be misused. I'm not for one minute suggesting that The Prime Provider keeps most of the 'start fee per attatchment' but if they did the Prime Provider can palm off almost all of the work to the Prime Contractor and keep about 50% of the £££ for doing very little other than a referral their in~house Placement Officer.

Added Wed 14th Nov 2012. I said in the para starting with [STRIKE]workfare[/STRIKE] """continues to scream loudly for more punishment for its young 'trainees""" just two weeks ago they were given that legislation, the right to stop benefit for up to 3 years.

63,390 X £400 = £25,356,000 (£25.3 million) Prime providers - ~ so ~ 63,390 X £150 = £9,508,500 (£9.5 million) to subcontractors ~ so ~ Prime provider nets £15,847,500

Thus prime providers can simply pocket cash from the attachments fees by referring them on to sub contractors who do all the work and run at a loss - hence they are leaving in droves. - here are the Prime Providers :

118,840

---

Ingeus (Seven contracts £727 m)
63,390

---

A4E (Five contracts worth £438 m)
47,070

---

Working Links (Three contracts worth £308 m)
44,130

---

Seetec (Three contracts worth £221m)
40,910

---

Avanta (Three contracts worth £267m)
33,310

---

G4S
20,700

---

Newc College Group
18,910

---

Rehab Jobfit
18,820

---

Serco Ltd
15,040

---

Careers Development Group
13,510

---

EOS - Works LTD
13,330

---

Business Employment Services
13,000

---

Pertempts
11,300

---

Reed in Partnership
9,870

---

ESG
7,250

---

Prospect Services Ltd
6,890

---

JHP Group LTD

SHAME : that Sir john's company JHP which was one of the highest scoring [permanent sustaining full time job offer] of the 80-90's is involved in this fiasco.

- the Prime Contractors are :

Far too many to mention but include Poundland / Holland & Barrett and many others.

But hey ! .. .. the money flows from the taxpayer via the treasury to the G4S's and Poundland's of this world to provide them with an increase in profits .. .. so that's alright then .. ..

grummps

Thanks, a fantastic post!!!

Yes there are ESA claimants that are currently having to undergo 'training' and many are being 'pushed' into voluntary work placements for anything up to 40 hours a week.

Under UC, it will get a lot worse.

Unless you are so seriously ill that working would be completely out of the question, you will be expected to comply with the conditions that JSA claimants suffer.

No longer will it be accepted that those who are 'sick' be allowed to remain on long term benefit with no effort being put into getting back into the work place.

Richie-from-the-Boro

- per #19
- the new Jobseeker’s Allowance [Sanctions][Amendment Regulations 2012 coming into effect October this year
- says :

JSA participants

31. Sanction action can be taken by the LM DM against JSA participants so that their benefit may be reduced or not paid if, without good reason, they fail to participate in the Work Program.

and

32. JSA benefit sanctions are applied for specific periods, which may follow on from each other if a participant fails to participate in a mandated activity more than once. The sanction periods are:

• 2 weeks – first sanction (cannot be reviewed)
• 4 weeks – second sanction (cannot be reviewed)
• 26 weeks – third sanction (can be reviewed)

- that my friends is [STRIKE]workfare[/STRIKE] by any name you call it !