After the Work Programme

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

this shows where you stand. we established its wrong and yet your response isnt to sympathise its to make a tantrum remark.

Aw bless, irony much from someone who bandys childish troll and 2yo comments around to avoid facing the facts.

Podge52

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Strange how you've not considered the referals are likely correct in the first place. And still the mindset that someone else should take responsibility.

Well Oct2011 to Oct 2012 there were nearly 80,000 sanctions overturned at reconsideration and over 3,000 overturned on appeal.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

it was always a benefit that meant people were protected from severe poverty. the change of name is saying severe poverty isnt something anyone cares about anymore.

The change of name is saying what is expected, crystal clear, just how you like it. Rather hypocritical to change tact when crystal clear doesn't suit your agenda.

There's hardship payments available for those that meet the criteria so pleading poverty is a moot point.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

there you go 2 posts in a row having a dig just because you dont like what is said. you dont like the truth. are you actually saying that advisers cherry pick who they see? i was informed that the infrequency of appointments is due to how busy they are.

Interesting how you perceive an advisor wanting to see keen jobseekers as having a dig.

Morglin

This might interest some of you:

"The MPs called for a review of whether the sanctions regime was having the desired effect of encouraging claimants to seek work.

The Public and Commercial Services union said the government's "stricter" rules have led to target-like objectives being set for staff to sanction a certain number of claimants, regardless of their behaviour.

"No-one joined the employment service to be in conflict with the people they are there to help, but this government is seeking to punish the unemployed, sick and disabled," general secretary Mark Serwotka said."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25920865

"The work and pensions select committee said claimants were in many cases wrongly losing their benefits and that a "haphazard" approach to assessing claimants meant that individual needs or problems were often misunderstood.

The select committee report claims jobcentre staff refer many claimants for a benefit sanction inappropriately, or "in circumstances in which common sense would dictate that discretion should have been applied".

The committee also said the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) needed to take urgent steps to monitor the extent of financial hardship caused by claimants losing their benefits – including the collection and publication of data on the number of claimants "signposted" to food aid by jobcentres and the reasons why these claimants were in need of assistance.

The report added that a current government review into sanctions was too limited. The review has been made more urgent by the minister for employment Esther McVey's admission that the number of sanction referrals made by jobcentre advisers is part of a "variety of performance data" used to monitor their work.

Academic research cited in the report found that 19% of all jobseeker's allowance claimants in the period from April 2008 to March 2012 were sanctioned – a total of 1.4 million people.

Sanctioning rates in the year to October 2012 were 4.2% of all jobseeker's allowance claimants per month. For claimants aged 18–24 the rate was 8% per month."

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jan/28/jobcentre-staff-rewarded-work-dole

Lin

jacques_chirac

red devil, please stop this persistent bullying. The only person it is making look bad is you. AP007 is just as welcome here as anyone else.

csmw

Gosh get a grip and grow up...you've already had one thread shut because of your childish bullying. Does it make you feel good tapping away at your keyboard insulting others?? I bet you sit there laughing to yourself.

Maybe if you spent as much effort on your job search you wouldn't be in the situation you are now. You could actually learn a thing or 2 from apOo7.

Morglin

As someone that worked in a DWP local office, for years, as a DM and advisor (both roles were combined then), and now as an ESA claimant, so seeing from both sides, although I do sympathise with the patently useless WP system, and the fact that SOME JCP offices are obviously (judging by the report I posted earlier) handing out sanctions like confetti, I really of think that you would find job searching, and relationships with your advisor, a little less fraught if you would drop the 'attitude' and the nitpicking a bit.

As a previous advisor, I had no axe to grind about any benefit claimants, and did my job best I could , but stroppy, and often abusive, claimants were the one thing guaranteed to wind me up.:mad:

AP007's experiences are just as valid as yours, and comments from other posters are just as relevant as yours.

Lin

stix62

Just getting back on topic (I hope no-one minds ), I have just been reading the PWP is a 6 month duration - is that still correct and what happens after that?

KevInChester

stix62 wrote: »

Just getting back on topic (I hope no-one minds ), I have just been reading the PWP is a 6 month duration - is that still correct and what happens after that?

From what I understand it will be some sort of community placement supervised by the same companies that have made the work programme such a resounding success (sarcasm).