Sanction targets revealed

gay_guy

Not sure if this is in the correct forum, here is a link with sanction targets from Jobcentre.

wow :mad: :eek:

http://slutocracy.wordpress.com/2013/11/21/interview-with-a-job-centre-advisor-sanction-targets-corruption-revealed/

Dovah_diva

A poor example of sanction targets. The article sounds like it was dictated by someone who is bitter and disillusioned with his job - not to mention it's posted on a site call Slutocracy, by someone who is clearly very anti-Government. It's entirely hearsay with not a single fact to back it up.

Oh and the thread should be posted in DT.

Denning.

For the 100th time, saying 'you should give out 2 sanctions a day' isn't a target, it is an average. When subjective humans are trying to implement objective rules they need guidance.

jacques_chirac

The Mole says: “I started my career with Jobcentre plus over 15 years ago at such a young age, I have literally done every job at lower (band level there is within the Jobcentre. I can assure you my knowledge of Jobcentre Plus is up with the best, I can also assure you I am not alone with my views.”!

Fifteen years and never promoted beyond AO? We can be pretty certain that his knowledge is nowhere near 'up with the best'.

GothicStirling

If the 'whistle-blower' had evidence that he could back-up, surely he would have gone to a newspaper like The Guardian? He would have been far better paid too.

This is no different than my boss saying, I want you to make two sales a day.

Denning.

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Fifteen years and never promoted beyond AO? We can be pretty certain that his knowledge is nowhere near 'up with the best'.

Difference between AO and EO in my experience is HUGE.

jacques_chirac

Denning. wrote: »

Difference between AO and EO in my experience is HUGE.

Not at all. In recent years the criteria had become much more stringent because there is more competition, but before this the assessment centre for those that had been there for some time was nothing more than a formality, unless they were really useless.

Denning.

jacques_chirac wrote: »

Not at all. In recent years the criteria had become much more stringent because there is more competition, but before this the assessment centre for those that had been there for some time was nothing more than a formality, unless they were really useless.

Sorry I was referring to the quality of the worker not the actual grade. There seems to be a lot more potential in those recruited into EO, non-FS graduates etc. Whereas a lot of AO started at AA and pretty much topped at AO.

Chester666666

Denning. wrote: »

For the 100th time, saying 'you should give out 2 sanctions a day' isn't a target, it is an average. When subjective humans are trying to implement objective rules they need guidance.

I don't agree as it's a target to aim at

Denning.

Chester666666 wrote: »

I don't agree as it's a target to aim at

To regulate consistency amongst advisors. There will be many who are concerned they are over/under sanctioning. Saying 'The average advisor will have 2 claimants a day who ought to be sanctioned'.

Show proof of reward/punishment for not meeting the 'target' and you might have a point. 'We don't think you are applying the rule fairly and not sanctioning when you should do' is not punishment.

john539

GothicStirling wrote: »

If the 'whistle-blower' had evidence that he could back-up, surely he would have gone to a newspaper like The Guardian? He would have been far better paid too.

This is no different than my boss saying, I want you to make two sales a day.

The sanction targets were exposed in Guardian in number of articles.

There is no comparison with your example, as the sanction targets are driven by politics & welfare reforms need to be seen as successful.

JC advisors were put under pressure in performance reviews if they weren't issuing enough sanction referrals.