JSA - JobCentre: own email report to myself as proof in case of issue with my adviser

Morlock

Honeypie wrote: »

I don't understand the conspiracy theories of "my adviser/JCP is out to get me" stuff.

Maybe I'm a little naive...

"The work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, has responded to allegations that jobcentres are operating sanctions targets to drive claimants off the dole queue by saying: "There are no targets, there will be no targets and anybody caught imposing a target will themselves be dealt with.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/22/iain-duncan-smith-jobcentres-benefits?INTCMP=SRCH

Now read this letter and you will realise that you are naive:




For some reason this site will not allow the scribdb.com url to be printed so I added the jpegs. For the original link replace the !!!!!!!!!!! with scribdb.com

http://www.!!!!!!!!!!!/fullscreen/131781238

"The government has launched an inquiry after it was forced to admit that jobcentres have been setting targets and league tables to sanction benefit claimants despite assurances to parliament this week that no such targets were being set. A leaked email [above] shows staff being warned by managers that they will be disciplined unless they increase the number of claimants referred to a tougher benefit regime."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/21/jobcentre-set-targets-benefit-sanctions

busy_mom_2

Jobcentres do not have targets, other than off-flow. Bench marks or expectations for things like referral's to activities, provision and yes, this included referrals to DMA. This can be because people have been sacked, left their job, missed an interviews. Not gone to work programme along with not looking for work.

The way people look for work has changed but some people still think looking in shop windows, asking friends and the free papers every Thursday will get them a job.
No, people need to re-educate themselves that they need to be spending a few hours a day job searching, tailoring their C.V. before sending to every job, seeking feedback. Follow these steps and the agreement that each job seeker reaches with their adviser and the is no issues. When a doubt is sent to a decision maker along with it goes an agreement that the job seeker has signed and agreed to, if you don't agree to the steps don't sign!

Why do people think advisers would love the grief and abuse they have to put up with every day, giving you one extra j b to apply for should be a bonus, what is so wrong with this?

Read the bottom half of the e-mail, it is exactly those sort of things that should be looked at, wants retail but no Saturdays?
If some-one misses an appointment yes reasons have to be looked at. If you are at work and your children or a relative is ill you get one day at the most to sort it out, after that is is unpaid or use your holiday.
Perhaps the adviser should start taping the interviews herself, she could use this in training session with other staff 'how to handle difficult customers'. She needs a halo!

Honeypie

Not that again :doh:

I worked in the job centre as a new deal advisor. The front line staff do not have targets to sanction people because they do not sanction people, they REFER people to the decision maker. A decision is then made by a faceless person on the evidence submitted.

A referral is really very different to a sanction. If there was no evidence to support to the referral then the sanction would not be put in place.

I detailed this on another thread. If there were no targets for staff to meet - such as the number of appointments to have each day, the number of jobs to have claimants apply to per visit, the number of DMA referrals to be made per day/week, then nothing would get done.

If you're meeting the conditions of your job seekers agreement and can prove so, you won't be referred and certainly not sanctioned. What's the issue?!


EDIT: I just noticed the mention of bonus. There are absolutely no bonuses or commission for any staff for hitting any numbers - no matter what they may be. Front line staff have their KPIs monitored like in any other business. Tracking the number of appts, referrals to training etc identify where a staff member may need more support or training.

Perhaps if people put as much effort into something positive for themselves, as they do with conspiracies and blaming everyone around them for their current situation, then we may all be better off.

lemontart

Honeypie wrote: »

Not that again :doh:

I worked in the job centre as a new deal advisor. The front line staff do not have targets to sanction people because they do not sanction people, they REFER people to the decision maker. A decision is then made by a faceless person on the evidence submitted.

A referral is really very different to a sanction. If there was no evidence to support to the referral then the sanction would not be put in place.

I detailed this on another thread. If there were no targets for staff to meet - such as the number of appointments to have each day, the number of jobs to have claimants apply to per visit, the number of DMA referrals to be made per day/week, then nothing would get done.

If you're meeting the conditions of your job seekers agreement and can prove so, you won't be referred and certainly not sanctioned. What's the issue?!


EDIT: I just noticed the mention of bonus. There are absolutely no bonuses or commission for any staff for hitting any numbers - no matter what they may be. Front line staff have their KPIs monitored like in any other business. Tracking the number of appts, referrals to training etc identify where a staff member may need more support or training.

Perhaps if people put as much effort into something positive for themselves, as they do with conspiracies and blaming everyone around them for their current situation, then we may all be better off.

Referral - Santion whatever one chooses to call it the bottom line is there does appear to be targets for these which is the issue of concern for some - there is fraud and yes it makes it difficult for all. But reports of targets for sanctions or referrals which ever you care to call it are coming in from various centres now and are widely reported across sites - so please I know it is not the front line staff but dwp and above.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/25/jobcentre-newsletter-sanctions-targets

Honeypie

lemontart wrote: »

Referral - Santion whatever one chooses to call it the bottom line is there does appear to be targets for these which is the issue of concern for some - there is fraud and yes it makes it difficult for all. But reports of targets for sanctions or referrals which ever you care to call it are coming in from various centres now and are widely reported across sites - so please I know it is not the front line staff but dwp and above.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/25/jobcentre-newsletter-sanctions-targets

You're missing my point. An advisor can't be targeted on a sanction because they don't do them. A decision maker does. An advisor may be given a target for referrals, but they cannot be targeted on sanctions.

How would you suggest they do it? Have each advisor conduct their role as they see fit personally? There needs to be guidelines and KPIs on the number of various actions each advisor needs to complete each day/week/month to ensure they are doing their role correctly and productively. And also to weed out those who abuse the system.

lemontart

Honeypie wrote: »

You're missing my point. An advisor can't be targeted on a sanction because they don't do them. A decision maker does. An advisor may be given a target for referrals, but they cannot be targeted on sanctions.

How would you suggest they do it? Have each advisor conduct their role as they see fit personally? There needs to be guidelines and KPIs on the number of various actions each advisor needs to complete each day/week/month to ensure they are doing their role correctly and productively. And also to weed out those who abuse the system.

I am not missing the point at all. I feel the the op feels that his adviser(s) is deliberately setting out to trip him up or mislead him hence he feels the need to record the meeting be it on his phone or email - though to be honest their writing style makes for difficult reading but that is how it comes across.

I agree that those that are not complying with the agreement or basically not actually interested in finding work should be brought to book, however government it which ever form be it politicians or decision makers behind closed doors denying the existence of key performance indicators - in this case targets for sanctions or referalls and the targets themselves could lead and have been shown to lead to some over zealous appliance of such where upon appeal they have been revoked.

Kpi's and targets cause a conflict in many sectors - I myself see this in my role, where we are asked to meet targets for cust service which require us spending more time with the customer but also have to meet aht targets - whilst meeting targets for other aspects, failure to meet any results in shall we say discussions with our line managers to start with........the point being on the front line staff delivering are being pulling and pushed in various directions.

Result something gives and in this case claimants start to get paranoid and or vital help in difficult times as those on front line feel pressured or some feel pressured for fear of not meeting kpi and having their own future put under pressure,

john539

busy_mom wrote: »

Jobcentres do not have targets, other than off-flow. Bench marks or expectations for things like referral's to activities, provision and yes, this included referrals to DMA. This can be because people have been sacked, left their job, missed an interviews. Not gone to work programme along with not looking for work.

Of course they have targets/pressure to refer people, to cover the advisors/managers/JC offices/DWP and their jobs to force people off benefits & make it look like policies are working for the Tories.

JC staff can pick on or misinterpret vulnerable people to get a result.
They are an easy target.

The_ICT_Engineer

john539 wrote: »

Of course they have targets/pressure to refer people, to cover the advisors/managers/JC offices/DWP and their jobs to force people off benefits & make it look like policies are working for the Tories.

JC staff can pick on or misinterpret vulnerable people to get a result.
They are an easy target.

I agree with this, as all to often these clerks hide behind the
"The Nuremberg Defense" when brought to book for their actions.



This is a hideous, demoralizing system which is rotten inside and out. It assumes the worst of people and panders to an unrealistic, mean-spirited view of those in need perpetuated by folk who never really have been. If sanctions and degrading treatment work so well, how come the so-called 'benefits culture' did not kick off much, much earlier in the 70s, when all one had to so was sign one's name and certify, 'yes I want a job, but I haven't found one yet'?

Monitoring and checking up on the unemployed to this extent must cost a fortune, for little obvious result. I would add that the capability of the benefits system to reduce even the best educated, experienced, confident and well-adjusted folk I have met to feel penalised, under suspicion, idle, worthless and above all, vulnerable, probably has more than a little to do with why a whole generation of less advantaged people are currently 'trapped' in it. This employment 'service' (cough), by virtue of it's highly degrading practices, actually makes people less employable.


I hate paying taxes to support these parasites. The job centre staff, not the claimants.

Honeypie

It IS a terrible system, where staff training regarding claimants not meeting conditions is terrible, amongst other things (training focuses on dealing with customers and paperwork), but for that we need to look further than the JCP staff. They are doing their job and I can't imagine any of the advisors care about any of those not meeting their conditions, to be 'out to get them'.

The OP has a history of having this kind of behaviour - as seen in other threads, where they were convinced their ex employer was the reason for their headache, 6 years later. No disrespect to the OP, but I think the problem does not lie with JCP.

I notice claimants on here who have been sanctioned, for what seems to me to be valid reasons (not providing enough evidence, arriving for appointments/WP 10 minutes late), arguing that they have done nothing wrong and acting like their advisor has done this to spite them.
Meet the conditions and you will not be sanctioned. Targets or not.

To state that it must cost so much money to check on people - I expect the millions that are claiming fraudulently cost the government more. It's THOSE people you need to be angry with NOT the JCP staff. If there wasn't so many people taking the mick out of the system, then there would be no need to check or have sanctions.

I've worked for JCP and I am NOT a parasite, I am also currently unemployed and have to meet the conditions, like everyone else. If I want a job - regardless of the £71pw - then I exceed those conditions, not just meet them.

To think that any advisor would care enough to be 'out to get' someone is ridiculous. They see hundreds of people each week. They deal with short and long term unemployed of all ages, people with alcohol and drug dependancy, people with mental health problems, the homeless... The list goes on. But yes, out of their caseload of 150+ that they have to see every couple of weeks, they've chosen YOU to victimise.

Too many people spend too much time complaining about JCP and their actions and being negative, creating their own barriers and having a bad attitude, acting like the world owes them something.

Gingernutty

I have to second what Honeypie is saying.

There are too many unemployed people signing on for a JCP worker to take against one person in particular.

MoonDragon has started the most bizarre threads and this is one of them.

Look for work, prove you've done it and show the evidence once a fortnight. If you can find jobs to apply for yourself and not just wait for the JCP advisor to print stuff off for you, even better. It's not rocket science.

If you give unreasonable expectations - "I want bar work but I can't do evenings or weekends", "I want to work in retail" or the best one I heard, "I want to be a childminder but I can't do mornings", then you need a reality check.

That's what the letter was explaining. Get a grip, MoonDragon and get help.

And the rest of you can stop encouraging him/her - it's embarrassing