After the Work Programme

Morglin

sensibleadvice wrote: »

They expect the same of their advisor too:

- only 3-4 days searching/week they say
- don't expect me to show you what I've looked for without great fuss they say
- don't pretend the name of allowance implies job seeking, that's just propaganda they say
- any queries into validity of claim and level of job seeking = nasty nasty advisor they say

One can only imagine what comments may come when the process gets more robust.

To begin with I have never claimed the dole and am a taxpayer (a heavily taxed taxpayer!), but your comments puzzle me.

If no one expects the JCP advisors or the WP's to actually assist the claimants towards a job, what am I, and others, paying for?

I worked for the DWP/JCP, during our last recession, in the 80's. We were expected to contact employers, arrange interviews, and generally assist they person into work where possible.

The jobs were displayed on boards, within the JC, and before they were advertised, they were checked out to ensure they were genuine jobs.

Yet, we now read that Channel 4 has discovered a very large number of 'jobs' advertised on UJM are phoney and/or scams - what use is that, to either the taxpayer or the claimant? :think:

The facts are, that the welfare system has been sent into a near total collapse by this idiotic government not reforming things properly. :wall:

Statistics are being juggled, false jobs are being invented, there are numerous court actions and enquiries going on, and still the welfare bill keeps rising.:mad:

WP's are paid, when they achieve nothing of value, and the whole thing has turned into a war of attrition. Advisors are doling out sanctions like confetti, and the rest of the system has to pick up the cost of it.

Anyone that can work should work, but quite honestly, the government and their not so bright ideas, are the main hindrance to this happening

Lin

stix62

Morglin wrote: »

I worked for the DWP/JCP, during our last recession, in the 80's. We were expected to contact employers, arrange interviews, and generally assist they person into work where possible.

The jobs were displayed on boards, within the JC, and before they were advertised, they were checked out to ensure they were genuine jobs.

I remember those days well. See a job you liked on the board, make a note of the number (or remove the card so no one else could go for it..lol), wander over to an advisor and usually after a quick phone call an interview was arranged. So simple - and it worked!

Morglin

Well, it sure worked better than today's expensive and crazy system!

Dismal Duncan Smith strikes again, and, as a side issue, there is now an officila enquiry starting (again) into the chaos with ESA and ATOS. :wall:

Lin

Lith

Does anyone remember the FJF? (Future Job Funds) ? they was pathetic and set many people up.

I, remember seeing it on BBC news... it won't be long till the 'WP' will be featured again on the good oldie BBC

Chester666666

Morglin wrote: »

If no one expects the JCP advisors or the WP's to actually assist the claimants towards a job, what am I, and others, paying for?

Lin

<My answer would be any of these options or all?:
sanctions to get the numbers down by hook or by crook
a propaganda device
to aid Seetec, Ingeus, Dunelms and the rest to make money
to penalise the unemployed for being unemployed
to make the government look better to the right-wing who supports these terrible schemes and those who think the unemployed should not just jobseek but be working and thus remove time from job seeking.
to keep the people in the jobcentre etc in jobs

BillJones

Podge52 wrote: »

Better to stay quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Indeed, but you don't seem able to help yourself.

Chester666666

BillJones wrote: »

Indeed, but you don't seem able to help yourself.

Podge52 isn't a fool though
Your comments are mostly insulting and not useful

mattcanary

AP007 wrote: »

The WP was meant to be TAILOR MADE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL and it never was only as you have put the LCD and I did tell them that when they said 'we can not help you' after they asked 'Why are you here' after meeting me for 5 minutes and seeing my CV and references. I also know I am not the lowest common denominator.

Then LCD or not advice should have been given to everyone as to what to do next.

Last job feedback I got was

I’m handling the shortlisting process on behalf of ***. We’ve had an overwhelming response to this advertisement which has afforded us the chance to purely focus on progressing candidates who are currently working.
There’s nothing lacking in your experience but it’s purely due to the fact that we have more applicants who are in work currently.

Was it sensibleadvice who gave you that last piece of feedback?:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

As a committed jobseeker why would you be concerned about what others do? Surely your commitment is and job seeking efforts is what matters most. I'm pretty sure an advisor is capable of recognising the difference between a very occasional funeral/sick day and serial offenders who use funerals/sick as excuses. Your post count and every day posting suggest sickness/funerals are very occasional anyway. Have you considered an advisor may perceive a claimant to be nasty and objectionable in the same way you perceive them as nasty, and be more inclined to sanction on details...just saying.

the concern is unfair treatment, everyone should have the same expected of them where possible. why should one person have to do loads while another has to do hardly anything and for the same money.
sickness may well be very rare but it only takes one time. it is naive to have faith that they would show common sense. that is why you need to be protected by something in black and white.
i wasnt nasty and objectionable. i was asked if wanted to change anything and i questioned the possibility and gave the reasons why.

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

That's an inflexible employee talking. Employers often require overtime to be done to meet KPI's and deadlines. Nothing wrong in the employer leaving early and expecting their employees to do overtime.

reasonable expectation of flexibility would be occasional overtime. it is rarely occasional at most employers who have it. many employees want overtime but they can only have it if the employer agrees. it should work the other way around too.