After the Work Programme

sensibleadvice

OleGunnar wrote: »

I'm sorry but you don't know what you're talking about. If they thought you weren't actively seeking employment they wouldn't have you in more often they'd just out right cancel the claim for JSA and impose a 4 week ban. If it wasn't the first time it'd be 13 weeks. Of course in reality both of those figures are inaccurate as they don't pay you for the first week of the claim, nor do they process the application immediately. 4 weeks would very, very easily be 6 weeks.


In regards to courses try this one I was sent on at a library:

It was sold as employability training but turned out to be 3 weeks of basic computer/ internet usage and how to use UJM. I was sent on this despite holding a level 4 qualification in Multimedia (so graphic design in digital applications, video editing, web site design on a course that's higher than A-Level and the equivalent of a HND/ first year at uni). Also bearing in mind my tailored CV is full of my knowledge of both Windows and OSX, Microsoft Office, a mention to my WPM.

You don't know me from Adam, however having stated that with the certificate to prove it, do you feel I need help on basic computer usage?

I was using UJM for 9 months prior to that course, which I signed up to of my own volition and a good few weeks prior to anybody at the Job Centre even mentioning it. I also have provided the Job Centre with cover letters that I've emailed along with my CV, they have my email so they know I have an UJM account and when I set it up. I also have print offs of applications from Reed, CV Library etc.

Again, you don't know me, but does it sound like I need help using UJM, signing up for jobsites or sending email?


So, that course. 3 weeks, 2 hours a day. £37.50 in bus fare for 3 week tickets (which was reimbursed by the JC), several hundred paid to the company for the training. Is that ballpark £250 well spent? Are you happy with that as a taxpayer? Can you understand why I might class that training as pointless and futile for me? Heck I was even offered the chance to volunteer and help others administer the course given how well I'd helped the guy next to me.


I don't dispute the course is useful for some. I don't doubt that it covered essentials. However, everything with the Job Centre, Work Programme and these private providers only aim for the lowest common denominator. There is absolutely no tailoring for suitability, no chance to discuss why it's unsuitable for me. I tried to explain the situation and my JC advisor didn't want to know. He knows me, he has my CV, he sees the number of jobs I apply for yet still said I had to attend even when I expressed it's unsuitability.

I think the point is to do one of the following: catch you out if you're working and signing. To frustrate you so you sign off, or to miss an appointment so they can sanction. Where this fails, along with all their punitive measures, is I don't work on the sly and claim so I can't be caught out. I'm intelligent enough and in control of my emotions and behaviour to not react and lash out or miss a day. So the punitive measures they impose are futile as it won't work- I don't sign on through choice or enjoyment but necessity.

What you have to understand is they class anybody who claimed JSA but no longer does as off flow. Got a job, cool, off flow. Got sanctioned and kicked off? Not so cool, but off flow. Topped yourself at the sheer futility and despair or got banged up for fire bombing the Job Centre? Well you don't claim any more so you're off flow. They don't count how or why you came off JSA all they see is one less claiming and another tick in the off flow.

Is the advisor an idiot, a demon, or vindictive? No, he has orders from above in his manager that sets a quota for sign ups to these schemes, to hit certain goals for sanction levels, for the number of off flow If he doesn't play ball, despite seeing the sheer idiocy of some situations then the advisor gets the boot too. I read in this very thread the other day a JC advisor expressing dismay at daily signings as it's pointless; it's they the advisor and not IDS who'll have to face the wrath of any doleys for this punitive rubbish.The Job Centre manager has his targets and is answerable to others and on you go up to IDS and the Government. Whose sole interest is not to tackle the issue but demonise the poor and blame them for a recession that had absolutely nothing to do with the jobless.

So the Job Centre advisor act in their best interests and sanction/ refer to unsuitable schemes and all along the way the point is forgotten that the idea is to help you find sustained employment as everybody from all sides is busy playing the game.

Naturally and brilliantly of all they don't have the funding for the sort, level and skilled training I'd like. They'd rather spend it on a work programme that's worse than doing nothing and the sort of course I described.

That's all well and good you saying all that but you've still failed to acknowledge why there has been 9 months of prior job seeking and not finding. You're right I don't know you but have you considered cleaning jobs? packing? part time? agencies? Because TBH, if it were me job seeking with those quals I'd be doing ujm because it's a requirement but I'd sure as heck be looking elsewhere for opportunities. Yes, been there done that btw.

You're right I don't know you but you appear articulate enough to evidence what is expected by the advisors such that the demonising and vindictive points are moot.

Incidentally, was the training 1-1?

AP007

sensibleadvice wrote: »

You mean like this, for example? Or this? Or this?

Just stuff about sifting, interviews etc which I have experience in.

And some stuff about the name of an allowance which apparently I don't and in this case reference to direct.gov not good enough for some.

But my CV is not generic or cliched.

The advisors would say if there was a problem with my CV, cover letter or approach to job seeking, wouldn't they? Surely they wouldn't let people apply for jobs with a bad CV or cover letter?

If not who else is going to help me?

imatt

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Many would of course prefer a 'good' advisor to tell them not to attend very often when they're doing very little to find work.

If an advisor thinks a claimant isn't actively seeking employment they may well ask for more attendance which may annoy the claimant. But the fact remains the reason for requests for more attendance isn't to annoy but to ensure work is sought more actively.

You really have no clue. You know nothing about what you type. It's quite embarrassing really. Many WP clients are 'parked', i.e. forgotten about for months on end. WHY?

Because the WP provider deems them unprofitable. It is not down to whether the adviser thinks they are seeking work or not. Hence the low attendance by many jobseekers. A bit of research could have told you this.

Before blaming any jobseekers here, perhaps you should be peeved at the colossal waste of monies on corrupt schemes such as the WP.

But of course it is people such as you, happy to wallow equally in a sense of smug superiority and pure ignorance that allow sociopaths like Iain Duncan Smith and his predecessors to waste money back to work schemes which fail time and time again. Not to mention allowing spivs such as A4e's Emma Harrison to pocket £8.6 MILLION from the taxpayer in 2012.

No doubt you see yourself as some kind of radical or 'free thinker' on this thread when in reality you are little more than a useful idiot.

sensibleadvice

melysion wrote: »

OK fine (although I am not convinced I like the tone of your first example). But then you undo all that good work by being so patronising and looking down on people elsewhere. Not really necessary is it? To tell people that they aren't good value to the tax payer (just to give your most recent insult). How does that achieve anything other than bad feeling?

The first example was factual and to the point. Read back on the posts and you might understand why I make no apology for the tone.

The second two were not patronising, look elsewhere, you'll see I've said I'd offer an interview to that poster. However others pick up on constructive points and spin it right around to the system, advisors etc. It's no wonder advisors are inclined to take a stern approach when faced with this kind of mentality.

I'm sure you'll be able to answer without diverting to something else that's poor value, a common tactic used...so, if somethings not good value why should there be a problem raising such a fact?

AP007

sensibleadvice wrote: »

The second two were not patronising, look elsewhere, you'll see I've said I'd offer an interview to that poster.

That's not me is it? :eek:

Chester666666

sensibleadvice wrote: »

You mean like this, for example? Or this? Or this?

Just stuff about sifting, interviews etc which I have experience in.

And some stuff about the name of an allowance which apparently I don't and in this case reference to direct.gov not good enough for some.

Most is basic to people but you tend to be rude about the unemployed and your persona online is smug and patronising
Dunno you in the r/w so don't be upset by my comments

sensibleadvice

melysion wrote: »

People look down on others because they are on benefits. Its that simple.They don't really need any other excuse, unfortunately. Its why I will never claim them, no matter how desperate I am. I am sure that you are aware that most people on JSA are pretty much tarred with the same brush - very unfairly so.

Sure - there will be people who are too lazy to get another job. But so what? They are the ones hurting themselves - its no skin off my nose of they are only doing the bare minimum. Seeing as JSA accounts for just 2% of the benefits bill, I am not going to sweat it. And I would prefer them to have a little money so that they can eat than be on the streets committing crime.

And such people are - to be fair - a rarity. Honestly. Most people really want to work. But being out of work is just bone crushing. A lack of self esteem isn't just due to wanting to blame the system. And to be honest I don't really think that is what it stems from for the most part.

It can be very much due to them considering themselves worthless, not part of society and a burden. A attitude that isn't helped by the media constantly telling them that. And it can be difficult shifting your attitude to a more positive one when you are constantly bombarded with this negative viewpoint that everyone is chucking at you.

Anyway. I think some of your posts are useful, in retrospect. But they can also be really judgmental. I am pretty sure me saying so wont make any difference to you - and that's fine. Why should it? But I am hoping that it may have made you think, just a tiny bit

Y'know I've never claimed benefits...cue someone stating CB (don't get that now either), I've been out of work for, oh, less than a couple of months tops. I've practiced all I preach and here I am in a OK job from pretty much starting with nothing. Yet educated folk on here can't secure even the most basic job and build from there?

The ones who are too lazy, make excuses, blame others...no skin off my nose either. But then it's no skin off my nose when they're up in arms at any positive suggestions that don't fit with their agenda, attitude and mindset. They're the ones going round in circles, I just see obvious flaws in their approach that would likely be quick wins and make a huge difference.

I for one would give most a chance if they came across with a good attitude, work ethic, determination and followed up. In fact I find people coming back into the workplace with this mindset are good value because they value being back in the workplace and are perhaps more mindful of being unemployed again.

On the other hand, someone who rocks up defeated before they start will defeat themselves.

sensibleadvice

AP007 wrote: »

But my CV is not generic or cliched.

The advisors would say if there was a problem with my CV, cover letter or approach to job seeking, wouldn't they? Surely they wouldn't let people apply for jobs with a bad CV or cover letter?

If not who else is going to help me?

I've not seen it so can't comment.

I expect advisors help with the basics on a CV, layout, content what's current etc. But as they do this for so many there will of course be cut and pastes, especially where there are gaps in employment, experience, training etc. My view is start with those basics and tailor to you - after all you know yourself best.

They're your applications and you're the one going to interviews so in the end you help yourself AP. Try not to be predicable like some, asking what JC do etc...

sensibleadvice

imatt wrote: »

You really have no clue. You know nothing about what you type. It's quite embarrassing really. Many WP clients are 'parked', i.e. forgotten about for months on end. WHY?

Because the WP provider deems them unprofitable. It is not down to whether the adviser thinks they are seeking work or not. Hence the low attendance by many jobseekers. A bit of research could have told you this.

Before blaming any jobseekers here, perhaps you should be peeved at the colossal waste of monies on corrupt schemes such as the WP.

But of course it is people such as you happy to wallow equally in a sense of smug superiority and pure ignorance to allow sociopaths like Iain Duncan Smith and his predecessors to waste money back to work schemes which fail time and time again. Not to mention spivs such as A4e's Emma Harrison to pocket £8.6 MILLION from the taxpayer in 2012.

No doubt you see yourself as some kind of radical or 'free thinker' on this thread when in reality you are little more than a useful idiot.

I'm not embarrassed to be in work.

Why are WP clients forgotten? What are they doing in those months on end...and the conveniently forgotten months prior to WP? Jobseeking perhaps? Yep done that, got the jobs while some keep on blaming spivs and sociopaths.

AP007

sensibleadvice wrote: »

I've not seen it so can't comment.

I expect advisors help with the basics on a CV, layout, content what's current etc. But as they do this for so many there will of course be cut and pastes, especially where there are gaps in employment, experience, training etc. My view is start with those basics and tailor to you - after all you know yourself best.

They're your applications and you're the one going to interviews so in the end you help yourself AP. Try not to be predicable like some, asking what JC do etc...

Predictable? If people are saying 'oh its your CV that's letting you down' and the like then who is it out there who helps these people with the sad sorry CV get a better version? The advisors?

Maybe the do help on lay out and content, I have no idea but when they say 'we can not help you' then what?

Nothing