The Work Programme (Problem)

Affynity

I'm considering writing a formal letter of complaint about to my work programme provider regarding my recent experience.

I am currently attached to Ingeus UK for support into employment.

Essentially I got a very unnecessary telling off earlier for having a 'negative attitude, and 'preventing myself from getting work for being so negative'.

This is because, my advisor had me attend an appointment today where he expected me to dress formally to discuss a bar job with him.
Unfortunately he neglected to mention the need to dress formally. The mandatory activity notice only said "attend pre-screen".

Last Thursday he sent me to an Ingeus office in another city to attend another pre-screen for a call centre role, but the person giving that pre-screen had written to me to tell me to dress formally, among other things she expected of the attendees.

So regardless of whether it could be assumed I should treat all pre-screens the same, he hadn't provided any conditions for today.
However, when I attended, despite getting told I was wearing the wrong shoes (trainers), I was also told that there was no pre-screening and that I had to attend the actual pre-screen tomorrow and that he was just 'testing to see if I'd dress appropriately before I sat the real pre-screen with this other advisor.

So, the starters of my negative attitude were that, I didn't need to attend today, I wasn't given any conditions to meet, I had already been told I need to be available to speak to the call centre employer who will call me at 'some point' this week, I have bar experience anyway and don't need an introduction to the job.
Also, when I stated that having me attend the office for no reason limited my other jobsearch activities, he had the audacity to ask
"How many jobs have you applied for in the last half an hour?"
I was travelling to this appointment in the last half an hour.
"Okay so how many jobs have you applied for since 9am?"
I had to leave the house before 11 to get here for 11:45. I did shower and shave and have breakfast before I left.

But no, that's not it. Apparently the colleague delivering the bar job pre-screen is meant to be very strict and won't tolerate any negative attitude so I should not be asking her things like
"Will there be guaranteed hours over 16 per week?"
and that she will throw me out if I yawn or look out of the window (which she allegedly did to someone last week).

All in all, I don't need attitude from somebody who is incapable of writing a mandatory activity notice, who works in an underperforming company, who knows I passed a pre-screening Thursday and went on a free work trial last Wednesday, telling me that I have the wrong attitude when all I wanted was proper details of what they expect from me and guaranteed working hours that will actually let me afford to live.

I costed my disposable income working at this bar for 16 hours on national minimum wage, and after I take out my transport costs, I'm only £19 a week better off.
My mum's council tax went up by £25 because they no longer discount you for unemployed adults in the household.

Oh and the other job they screened me for was £7.50/hour and full time. so you can understand why I'm more inclined to pursue that one and not this.

KevInChester

You have my sympathies re: Work Programme. I can certainly see why you would be more passionate about the full time role. Good luck, and if you secure work ensure you rescind all permission for them to claim an outcome if you have not already done as such (unless you think they've earned it, then it's only fair they get the credit).

Affynity

KevInChester wrote: »

You have my sympathies re: Work Programme. I can certainly see why you would be more passionate about the full time role. Good luck, and if you secure work ensure you rescind all permission for them to claim an outcome if you have not already done as such (unless you think they've earned it, then it's only fair they get the credit).

I've been carrying around the DPA waiver retraction letter from consent.me.uk for ages now.
It may well be the right time to hand it in.

Ugh, I just wish the Work Programme bubble would burst already. It doesn't work, it's never worked in any country that adopted it.
It's going to make for very grim reading when they cost it in 2015.

dandelionclock30

Theres nothing wrong with asking about the hours of a job. Thats a normal conversation for anyone who is wanting work. If they try to stop your money or threaten you about asking this then you need to complain. I would to them, and to my M.P.

Affynity

dandelionclock30 wrote: »

Theres nothing wrong with asking about the hours of a job. Thats a normal conversation for anyone who is wanting work. If they try to stop your money or threaten you about asking this then you need to complain. I would to them, and to my M.P.

My MP. Mr Woodward (Lab) has a notoriously bad response rate.

saintjammyswine

Affynity wrote: »

I've been carrying around the DPA waiver retraction letter from consent.me.uk for ages now.
It may well be the right time to hand it in.

Ugh, I just wish the Work Programme bubble would burst already. It doesn't work, it's never worked in any country that adopted it.
It's going to make for very grim reading when they cost it in 2015.

When the Work Programme returners (those who have not found employment in the 2 yrs contact period) come back on to JCP registers, they will be required to do 30 hours volunteering per week to claim benefits. It will be called Community Action and will start in October. Not really relevant to your point, just sharing.

Affynity

saintjammyswine wrote: »

When the Work Programme returners (those who have not found employment in the 2 yrs contact period) come back on to JCP registers, they will be required to do 30 hours volunteering per week to claim benefits. It will be called Community Action and will start in October. Not really relevant to your point, just sharing.

I can fully believe it.

I was witness to a disturbing phone call while at Ingeus yesterday.
I overheard an adviser cold call a business and ask them about the recruitment services they use.
They then went on to recommend that business stop using all those recruitment services and use Ingeus because "It's free, the government pay us" and they have people on their books they will match to their vacancies and "if you'll take one of our younger clients, we'll get you a £2250 payment."
No mention that the claimants were unemployed or that there was a financial incentive for Ingeus to clear their books.

Now this wouldn't be so much of an issue but my whole time yesterday, 11:00-15:15, was spent in the pursuit of one low paid job for JD Wetherspoons. The vacancies they'd sent myself, and this unfortunate group of Ingeus customers to group interview for, are not listed publicly.
The agreement Ingeus are making with these employers are exclusive.

Why this might not seem that sinister, I feel it's going to have seriously negative future consequences.
If vacancies aren't public then you'll be limited in the jobs available to you depending on your provider, people already in work will have no labour market mobility, the non-intervention rate will fall and strengthen the work programme's position of failure, and you could be mandated to apply for jobs that aren't suitable.

This bar (or kitchen) job certainly wasn't suitable. I don't drive and I certainly don't want to be walking home at 1:30am. My household is operating at a monthly loss, a part-time, min-wage job will not bring us out of debt. I wasted four years and ran up these debts to get an education because I worked in a crappy bar job before I was qualified. I'd want to have the opportunity to use these skills.

I dunno, maybe I can get the JCP to add a minimum hourly condition to my Jobseeker's agreement. This current one just says "up to 40", I need to be taking work that guarantees at least 24 or I'll just slowly increase my debts more and more.

blckbrd

Affynity wrote: »

If vacancies aren't public then you'll be limited in the jobs available to you depending on your provider, people already in work will have no labour market mobility, the non-intervention rate will fall and strengthen the work programme's position of failure, and you could be mandated to apply for jobs that aren't suitable.

Would ring-fenced vancancies not be an advantage? If it were public there'd be more competition.

The rose-tinted me believes that government allowed market forces to be involved in delivering public services because it would bring about saving. The cynical me believes they knew that pocket-lining would the primary motivation in getting involved at all because such is business.

It's clear that you are really upset by the issues with your adviser. Don't confuse that with your issues with the business.

I think you have a great opportunity, given your anxiety issues to take big leaps forward. If you can cope with the sudden change of adviser in a 'safe' setting then you might be more prepared to deal with the same in a work setting.

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, as they say.

saintjammyswine

Some job opportunities come through the partnership work with organisations like Ingeus, employers, local authorities and training providers. Yes, there are financial reasons for this but the efforts are, in the whole, genuinely meant to help people into employment. Some vacancies come through the work around the work programme (in its wider meaning) where, for example a company is opening a new facility in an area, the local authority imposes a Skills Plan on them which may include provision of apprenticeships, a requirement to get existing employees trained to a certain level, provision of work experience opportunities for local students and in many areas, ring fenced job vacancies or guaranteed interview for people who are unemployed or from particular groups (e.g. those from areas of deprivation, with disabilties etc.) Yes, they may reduce the jobs available to the open market but also help those with barriers to employment to get an 'in' to the company they may not have had previously. When done properly it can really help people get into employment who may not have been able to otherwise.

Affynity

To be honest, the main reason these things bother me is because these providers don't have that much power in the labour market.
The jobs they secure are bound to be unskilled, entry level roles, but they're never going to use them on the harder to place customers such as those with disabilities.
They're going to use predatory employers to place those closest to getting real jobs into poor jobs and chase the easy outcome payments.

But consider that the prime providers do not work collaboratively. The number of ring-fenced opportunities will simply be proportionate to the influence of your WP company.
So the competition that providers really need to be making on delivering service, will simply come down to either the size or the cheapness of the provider.

Anyone can see that this industry is going to buckle very soon. It won't be the government or the providers out of pocket or held to blame. It will be all those unfortunate to have been caught in this farcical squall

saintjammyswine

Affynity wrote: »

To be honest, the main reason these things bother me is because these providers don't have that much power in the labour market.
The jobs they secure are bound to be unskilled, entry level roles, but they're never going to use them on the harder to place customers such as those with disabilities.
They're going to use predatory employers to place those closest to getting real jobs into poor jobs and chase the easy outcome payments.

But consider that the prime providers do not work collaboratively. It depends on the area. In many areas, they do work together, along with JCP, local Colleges, Local Authorities and other organisations to create & manage a cohesive, co-operative group. I work on one of these groups and it does work. Not all areas have this of course and it is a 'trailblazer' for want of a less management speak word!The number of ring-fenced opportunities will simply be proportionate to the influence of your WP company.
So the competition that providers really need to be making on delivering service, will simply come down to either the size or the cheapness of the provider.

Anyone can see that this industry is going to buckle very soon. It won't be the government or the providers out of pocket or held to blame. It will be all those unfortunate to have been caught in this farcical squall

Just the one comment from me above.