Help to Work Programme comes in today

pmduk

The only good thing is the extra civil service jobs it will create.

Midnighter

Mr_Falling_Star wrote: »

I don't have a source for this but anecdotally I have heard that a third of claimants sign off when they finish the WP as the Jobcentre basically sit on them.

That's not been my experience of PWPS. I'm now on my fourth advisor :eek:, and the only annoyance I've experienced is their insistance on referring me to courses I've already completed. One advisor even tried to persuade me to undertake a Level 1 ECDL while I was in the middle of Level 2.

JeLaw

BillJones wrote: »

Yes, we take on people with gaps in their CV, and no, we don't turn down people for being over-qualified or too experienced. The latter points would be hard, as I prefer people with backgrounds like mine if possible, Oxbridge degrees and good doctorates.

BillJones wrote: »

Where did you read that? I certainly didn't write it.

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your posts. The first post above states that you don't turn down people for being over-qualified or too experienced.

BillJones

JeLaw wrote: »

I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your posts. The first post above states that you don't turn down people for being over-qualified or too experienced.

Yes, and then you bizarrely made the jump to assuming that we recruit cleaners, instead of contracting that work out, as most large firms do, to attempt to make some lame point.

To be clear, if I were hiring a cleaner, I'd be wary of picking an able-bodied driven person with a doctorate in particle physics, unless their lifelong dream was cleaning. I suspect that I'd tend to end up icking another candidate, all things being equal.

JeLaw

silentkiller wrote: »

I was just waiting for a string of 'it's the foreigners taking our jobs' etc! :doh: that's all I hear from people I know who are unemployed..
But that's besides the point...

The company I work at has had numerous bad experiences with people who have been long term unemployed. (even had a driver who said he was at our interview because he had to be and didn't want the job). We have had people who are on probation work for free with us for a month (and all but one were terrible and didn't last the month) to see if they could get a job with us at the end of it - only one did and he never showed on his start date.

Now, besides looking for an apprentice (again that is a bone of contention for me but not my company so have no choice), we only employ people who work for money, not for free because in my experience it just doesn't work.

I'm not saying it CAN'T work, but I'm saying, I haven't seen it work.

So I'm in two minds about the whole thing because whilst I think it would be good to force the people to do some extra work (in the community, etc etc), I don't really think it will work out. It will punish those who are older (and I'm not saying I'm against young people because I'm only 24 but in every single interview session I've done, the young ones typically tend to be the worse for not wanting to be there, or not having a clue), or those who really want a job as well.

Education seems like a good idea as everyone has said above - perhaps put everyone on a compulsory course of some sort (to choose from admin, IT, sales, business studies etc).

When we interview we don't necessarily use something on the CV as a negative thing - we have employed a man who used to work the Hong Kong government and now works in a warehouse (which he loves by the way) so we do hire over experienced people, however if I saw a massive gap in someone's employment history like not working for a very long time and not having anything on the CV to explain why, I would ask and if they were unable to give a satisfactory answer then I would not consider them. I don't think I'm the minority there.

There are ALWAYS free courses you can do (Alison) which may not gain you accreditation BUT prove you have been doing something with your time (if you can of course but if you are off for being very ill, or had a child etc I get that).

Last year when I was interviewing I had a woman who had had cancer and so had not worked since 2001 or something, I think, however she had about 15 certificates she had done (that were not nationally accredited) to fill in her time.

There are things people can do to boost their image and perhaps the Government needs to make things like that more compulsory than just forcing people to do work.

*I am not against young people and believe there are more than enough exceptions to the rule, I am basing my entire answer on my experience*

So it's fair to tar everyone with the same brush? Talk about discrimination!

I think the problem for your company is that at the moment claimants are forced to apply for job after job - regardless of whether they meet the requirements. Also, there does exist a minority of long-term unemployed who don't want to work. It's the genuine jobseekers who are suffering because of this.

To be honest, it needs to acknowledged that some people are more or less unemployable (whether because of unwillingness or inability - the latter could be overcome with appropriate training or education).

Let's have the government focus in the first instance on helping the majority of unemployed people who do want to work. As others have pointed out on this thread, the current system serves only to hurt these genuine claimants - as the unwilling know how to play the system and/or turn to crime.

I want to emphasise that I think work experience would be fantastic. But if longer than a few weeks this needs to be paid. Many unemployed people would love the chance of employment.

To combat employer concerns of unsuitable or unwilling candidates, a trial (unpaid) period of a few weeks would be useful. And in terms of my suggestion of positive discrimination. I'm not suggesting the company takes on any old claimant. It should operate in a similar vein as the scheme for disabled applicants. That is anyone who meets the required job specifications is automatically granted an interview - and perhaps the first choice for the role should be the unemployed candidate (when more than one candidate is suitable for the position).

Btw, I think it's wonderful that your company is open-minded enough to employ people that other companies might overlook as "too experienced". That really is to be applauded and we need more companies to do this.

JeLaw

busy_mom wrote: »

The reason it is restricted to 8 week is so compaines wont get long term skilled labour free.
Who said anyone must voluntery for a charitable organisation full time? I do voluntary work but it not full time, I work full time and give some of my free time to support others.

I am trying to explain the difference between voluntary work and a wor experience. They are different. At present wex are promoted to 18-24. Under the new scheme they will be certin one promoted to over 25's.
Please bear in my there are many diferent schems with different rules.

As for paying people, the average community work placement will be 30 hours per week, take off jobsearch time which will be around 10 hours so they will be doing an average of 20 hours, bear in mind JSA rate, council tax and rent let alone dental treatment and prescriptions that have been recieved for more than 3 years I feel this is a fair payback.

No I dont belive the scheme will solve all problems, it will not help everyone but the scheme is in two parts, these prior to WP and those after it. Please remember we are talking long term unemployed post work programme, post FND and it is anticipated to be one it three. This amounts to around 5% or each JSA offices register being referred to the community 6 mnth placement.
Others will take part is supported jobsearch and other incentives.
Post work progame is basically as it is now but all claimiants must produce a good quality C.V. be available and prove they are actively seeking employment. Basic skills and none english speakers will also have to improve their skills.

I agree with you that more educational opportunities would be welcome. But this must be implemented without the attitude of one size fits all. Some unemployed people have difficulty obtaining work due to employer prejudice against "over-qualified people". Employers are turning them down because of "too much education" in their case.

I would welcome support for "training" if this does take into account that unemployed claimants are not all the same. At present the education or training opportunities available to claimants are generally for people who have not achieved more basic levels of education. Will degree (or post-graduate) level education be included in the scheme?

I have a friend who wants to retrain as a solicitor. They're very bright, academic, and have years of work experience under their belt. They never pursued law originally because they had caring responsibilities and had to seek whatever employment they could find. They're now out of work (redundancy) and would jump at the chance of genuinely beneficial work experience. They have also found a local law firm willing to take them on for 3 weeks unpaid work experience. The JCP have warned this will result in a sanction.

Regarding volunteering. I didn't realise the scheme wasn't for full-time voluntary work. Thanks for clarifying. If it's part-time, I think that's a good idea. It can be very helpful for someone who has been out of work for a long period of time to regain confidence through volunteering.

In terms of candidates having a good quality CV. Sometimes the current system - forcing claimants (regardless of their particular experience and skills) to apply for any job going, serves to damage their CV. Maybe not in the short-term but certainly for future applications. Some people end up in a kind of trap. They take any work going - including many temporary roles and various different positions in numerous different industries. Further down the line they then find themselves turned away by employers for "lacking commitment" - because of the number of different (often short-term) roles on their CV.

I'm not suggesting people don't take temporary or different roles. But companies should not then discriminate when hiring against people with such CVs.

JeLaw

BillJones wrote: »

Yes, and then you bizarrely made the jump to assuming that we recruit cleaners, instead of contracting that work out, as most large firms do, to attempt to make some lame point.

To be clear, if I were hiring a cleaner, I'd be wary of picking an able-bodied driven person with a doctorate in particle physics, unless their lifelong dream was cleaning. I suspect that I'd tend to end up icking another candidate, all things being equal.

My company also contracts out for cleaners.

My original point - perhaps clumsily made (in part due to being at work right now and therefore unable to spend too much time on this thread....), is that it's pointless and a waste of tax money to force "training" on some unemployed claimants. Because not every unemployed person lacks training or education, and some are finding it difficult to secure work because they're being overlooked as "over-qualified".

By your own admission your company would turn down a candidate applying for a role as a cleaner for being over-qualified. What do you suggest someone in that situation does? I'm sure you're aware that many jobs in academia are contract based. Quite a few academics (including a friend of mine) find themselves out of work at times. What point is the work programme for them if recruiters will only consider them for a few specialised roles?

Either people are able to claim benefits should they have the need (often after having paid tax for years) without the fear of sanctions for not undertaking unnecessary training and/or long-term unpaid "work experience". Or employers should adopt positive discrimination and take on applicants for roles despite perceiving the candidate to be "over-qualified" or "too experienced".

busy_mom_2

lakes17 wrote: »

The answer to this is yes they have the choice to refuse but what busy mom omitted to say is that if you refuse then sanctions will be put in place.

Re read my post. no 72 i did not omit anything. I stated they may be sanctioned if they refuse.

busy_mom_2

JeLaw wrote: »

I agree with you that more educational opportunities would be welcome. But this must be implemented without the attitude of one size fits all. Some unemployed people have difficulty obtaining work due to employer prejudice against "over-qualified people". Employers are turning them down because of "too much education" in their case.

I would welcome support for "training" if this does take into account that unemployed claimants are not all the same. At present the education or training opportunities available to claimants are generally for people who have not achieved more basic levels of education. Will degree (or post-graduate) level education be included in the scheme?

I have a friend who wants to retrain as a solicitor. They're very bright, academic, and have years of work experience under their belt. They never pursued law originally because they had caring responsibilities and had to seek whatever employment they could find. They're now out of work (redundancy) and would jump at the chance of genuinely beneficial work experience. They have also found a local law firm willing to take them on for 3 weeks unpaid work experience. The JCP have warned this will result in a sanction.

Regarding volunteering. I didn't realise the scheme wasn't for full-time voluntary work. Thanks for clarifying. If it's part-time, I think that's a good idea. It can be very helpful for someone who has been out of work for a long period of time to regain confidence through volunteering.

In terms of candidates having a good quality CV. Sometimes the current system - forcing claimants (regardless of their particular experience and skills) to apply for any job going, serves to damage their CV. Maybe not in the short-term but certainly for future applications. Some people end up in a kind of trap. They take any work going - including many temporary roles and various different positions in numerous different industries. Further down the line they then find themselves turned away by employers for "lacking commitment" - because of the number of different (often short-term) roles on their CV.

I'm not suggesting people don't take temporary or different roles. But companies should not then discriminate when hiring against people with such CVs.

Can I please state I dont agree with all JCP schemes I am trying to explain why the governemt has the schemes and the intention behind them. Some i like some I dont.

They are trying to halt the onesize fits all. There is pre work programme and post work programme route. I would be here all night detailing all the differences. Please bear in mind Community action proramme is for 1 in 3 long term claimants who have been unemployed for 3 or more years and in that time made no attempt to complete any form of work at all be in voluntary work, work expereince or any work placement of any sort.

Let me try to clarify a few other points. WEX schemes are primarily aimed at 18-24 but over 25 can participate. They are up to 8 weeks 30 hour placement with a local company who MAY have jobs available and these are taster sessions. Some may not have jobs attached. They are unpaid and canot last any longer than 8 weeks. the jobseeker will hopefully learn new skills fill a gap on their C.V and have a reference at the end. A jobseeker can find there own WEX but the employer MUST sign the WEX paperwork.
Vol work can be any hours provided its for a non profit making or charity based orgainisation. The jobseeker must still be available for work and cannot use their placement as an excuse to not participate in any other work related activity. IE working in a school to gain teacher assistant experience and jobseeker has no up to date C.V. Adviser books jobseeker on a two day employability course then they must attand or risk there benefit being sanction so in other words for hose few days the voluntary work takes second place. It must not hinder any jobseeking activity.

Hope this helps.

Gaz1971

If the govt got rid of IDS and George Osborne they would save a fortune for the tax payer.