Do I have to do work experience?

stix62

sniggings wrote: »

how is it hard to judge?

read this, very interesting. http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/the-work-programme-is-getting-worse-latest-figures-reveal/

Hmmm, you know what will happen next- to 'improve the figures' - they'll extend the WP to 3 or 4 years!

edit: Good luck in the new job b.t.w

amiehall

sniggings wrote: »

how is it hard to judge?

read this, very interesting. http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/the-work-programme-is-getting-worse-latest-figures-reveal/

Well who do you compare WP participants to? Where is the control group?

I was under the impression that everyone who's been unemployed for over a year MUST join the WP. So what jobseekers are they comparing this group to? People who've been unemployed for less than a year that surely are more likely to find work no matter what intervention you provide?

I'm no great fan of the WP, I just don't understand how anyone can show conclusively that the WP is worse than nothing. That definitely isn't what that article demonstrates.

Denning.

amiehall wrote: »

Well who do you compare WP participants to? Where is the control group?

I was under the impression that everyone who's been unemployed for over a year MUST join the WP. So what jobseekers are they comparing this group to? People who've been unemployed for less than a year that surely are more likely to find work no matter what intervention you provide?

I'm no great fan of the WP, I just don't understand how anyone can show conclusively that the WP is worse than nothing. That definitely isn't what that article demonstrates.

Unless the 'got jobs' figure is very high double digits certain people will always claim it doesn't work and a waste of money, offering no reasonable alternatives.

sniggings

amiehall wrote: »

Well who do you compare WP participants to? Where is the control group?

I was under the impression that everyone who's been unemployed for over a year MUST join the WP. So what jobseekers are they comparing this group to? People who've been unemployed for less than a year that surely are more likely to find work no matter what intervention you provide?

I'm no great fan of the WP, I just don't understand how anyone can show conclusively that the WP is worse than nothing. That definitely isn't what that article demonstrates.

it's the government's own figure, they say that 5 out of 100 people will find work with no help, but the WP is only finding jobs for 3 people out of every 100 on the scheme.

In effect these private schemes are getting paid for nothing, send me 1.2 million people I'll take them all for a coffee, and I bet within a year I will have at least 3% in work, then I'll collect my cheque from the government, pay the coffee bill and pocket the rest, 3% is shameful, and it's costing the tax payer billions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20507767