Sanction targets revealed

john539

Denning. wrote: »

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.

Why is that relevant.

Higher grades are more likely to follow the party line and have more to lose.

What counts are the facts.

Dunroamin

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'.

And why he bears a grudge against the system.

Chester666666

Dunroamin wrote: »

And why he bears a grudge against the system.

He has seen the terrible effects the system has on Jobseeker's etc

John1993_2

Chester666666 wrote: »

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

If I had a job picking out the duff pies on a production line, and my manager told me that I should expect to drop about one percent, then I'd understand that that was just guidance, so I knew if I was going too hard or too easy on the suspect products.

It's just the same here. See X people per day, and you expect to sanction Y of them. If you sanction none, or five times Y, then you need to reappraise what you are doing, to make sure that you are doing it right.

Even if it was targets, of course, that'd be fine, too. We need people to make sure that they aren't slacking in their obligations, and introducing a sense of competition into it (such as sanctioning the worst two people every day) would not be a bad way to go about it.

john539

John1993 wrote: »

If I had a job picking out the duff pies on a production line, and my manager told me that I should expect to drop about one percent, then I'd understand that that was just guidance, so I knew if I was going too hard or too easy on the suspect products.

It's just the same here. See X people per day, and you expect to sanction Y of them. If you sanction none, or five times Y, then you need to reappraise what you are doing, to make sure that you are doing it right.

Even if it was targets, of course, that'd be fine, too. We need people to make sure that they aren't slacking in their obligations, and introducing a sense of competition into it (such as sanctioning the worst two people every day) would not be a bad way to go about it.

Another irrelevant comparison.

You're comparing products with people.

Maybe you can justify:
"See X people per day, and you expect to sanction Y of them."

And it should not be competition driven, reward driven, performance driven, advisor threat driven as you're threatening to drive people into poverty, destutution or make them homeless.

Saying something like "such as sanctioning the worst two people every day" is clearly clueless & stupid.

spacey2012

Without getting anyone in trouble, it is 4 a day as of November 1st of they are on the carpet for a giant rollicking.
They have a leaderboard of sanctioners, some average 10 or more a day
This leads to totally random sanctioning to avoid the carpet...

Those that dont like it can "appeal".

Once sanctioned they are removed from the figures shown to the general public "people actively seeking work in receipt of job seekers allowance"

iammumtoone

Personally I don't think its the issuing of sanctions by the advisers that is the biggest problem with this system. The advisers want to keep their jobs just the same as a job seeker wants to find one, that is understandable, to do this they have to issue sanctions much the same as you have to follow procedures in other jobs. I believe the main problem is the way the sanctions are implemented. Adviser refers to a decision maker, money is immediately stopped! I can think of no other situation where this happens (in a working enviroment you may get disciplined/sacked BUT you are still paid until there has been a hearing to decide the outcome of your case). The sanction should not be applied until the job seeker has had the right of appeal and put forward their defense.

John1993_2

john539 wrote: »

And it should not be competition driven, reward driven, performance driven, advisor threat driven as you're threatening to drive people into poverty, destutution or make them homeless.

Well, that's your opinion, but I disagree. Some people seem to need a real kick up the backside, and sanctions are an excellent way to provide it. Explaining to staff how many they should expect to give out is part of this.

iammumtoone

John1993 wrote: »

Well, that's your opinion, but I disagree. Some people seem to need a real kick up the backside, and sanctions are an excellent way to provide it. Explaining to staff how many they should expect to give out is part of this.

Yes correct some people do, but there are plenty that don't. Thats the issue, everyone is different, say advisor A sees all the people that do need a kick and hands out lots of deserved sanctions, however advisor B's clients that day have done what they should, what are they suppose to do then (its not their fault advisor A saw all the lazy people). It leaves advisor B no choice but to look for reasons/excuses to sanction people that don't deserve it.

John1993_2

iammumtoone wrote: »

say advisor A sees all the people that do need a kick and hands out lots of deserved sanctions, however advisor B's clients that day have done what they should,.

Are you suggesting that the jobcentre is assigning clients to advisors in this way? That seems pretty unlikely.

If you mean that just by chance one advisor gets a vastly different sellection to another, over a long time period, then that's not going to happen, it's not how statistics work.

I wonder if perhaps you are mixing "2 daily" as an average rate with "2 every day", which is not the sme thing at all.