Finished Work Pragramme

donnajunkie

Flyonthewall wrote: »

No excuse, they shouldn't lie, but you can't really blame them for wanting things to be easier. Who wouldn't want their job to be easier, especially if you don't know of any reason why you shouldn't do/say something?

It's silly to keep doing things the hard way if you think there's an genuine easier way.

Really it's a few clicks vs handing over a piece of paper for them to look through. However, I think they really do believe it makes things easier for them.

It's a sanction tool. I was being generous earlier. The likelihood is they want access to make it easier to find an excuse to sanction people.

tomtontom

Can I suggest the two of you take your discussion to your own thread? The OP is asking for advice and your posts are completely irrelevant to her situation.

Flyonthewall

donnajunkie wrote: »

It's a sanction tool. I was being generous earlier. The likelihood is they want access to make it easier to find an excuse to sanction people.

Yep. I agree, for some they do want it as an easy way to sanction and a lot want it as an option to sanction if they feel it's needed.

The reason they want it may be because they're not plannng on being decent, but that's different to your original point of them lying about access.

Flyonthewall

tomtontom wrote: »

Can I suggest the two of you take your discussion to your own thread? The OP is asking for advice and your posts are completely irrelevant to her situation.

Other people have joined in, plus I've still been replying to the OP posts.

The OP was worried about the JC and the advisor being mean. An advisor posted here, which I believe is when that part of the discussion started because they said "so the days of 'not giving you hassle' are long gone" and that was in reply to the OP. So it's all related even if not direct to the original post now.

If the OP wishes us to stop and feels none of it is at related and feels we're spamming fair enough. However, this is a forum and sometimes other conversations or sub discussions happen inbetween. The OP has continued posting and gaining replies (including from me) so I see no reason to start an entirely new thread.

If you don't want to read our posts just skip past them.

dori2o

donnajunkie wrote: »

if i was an adviser i would decide what i think is reasonable and then ask that of everyone i see. i would put in slight variations just to ensure no-one picks up on it.

This attitude would soon see you on the other side of the desk.

I know people who work for the DWP and in particular JCP.

Most of them are not being intentionally horrible or setting impossible tasks, or purposely requiring peopole to sign on daily, they are doing these things because currently those are the obligations set on them by their contract of employment.

Just because someone isn't standing over them doesn't mean that they are not being monitored.

The DWP have very similar monitoring systems to the ones used by HMRC. They monitor how long you are taking to deal with each person/case. Every key stroke is logged on the PC, every action taken on a persons record is logged, from this log it can be identified who made the entry, what time it was done, what day it was done.

Most people who work for the DWP, especially those in customer service/facing roles will have monthly reviews/coaching where their managers can check what they have donbe and whether they have followed current guidance.

If they have not then they will be told about it and either be mnonitoreed even more closely, provided extra/refresher training, or if this is an ongoing issue then they can be put onto Managing Performance procedures, which could lead to dismissal if they don't sucessfully complete the review.

Most people I know who work for ther DWP hate the current service they are being forced to give to people, but if they want to guarantee that they still have a job and a wage coming in at the end of the month then they have to follow the rules set for them. Just as everyone in any other job has to. You cannot just go off and be a renegade just because you don't agree with what you are being told to do. If you believe that you can or should then it may explain why you yourself DJ have been out of work so long.

I don't particularly like the way HMRC does some things, but I'm not employed there to do as I please, I am employed there to perform the duties that I have been set, in the way the department expects them to be done.

Does that make me a robot or a jobsworth, possibly. Would I like to just do as I please assuming that what I am doing is within the scope of the legislation currently in place and not illegal/improper/fraudulent etc, yes I would, but there are ways of changing the system without off the reservation alone.

This is why I am involved at work with various trials aimed at increasing customer service, increasing contact types, increasing the use of technology based services such as e-mail, webchat/live help, video chat, IM etc for customers to use rather than phoning or writing. Reducinbg call waiting times and post turnaround etc etc.

You don't impose change on a department by being the one person who does as they please.

donnajunkie

dori2o wrote: »

This attitude would soon see you on the other side of the desk.

I know people who work for the DWP and in particular JCP.

Most of them are not being intentionally horrible or setting impossible tasks, or purposely requiring peopole to sign on daily, they are doing these things because currently those are the obligations set on them by their contract of employment.

Just because someone isn't standing over them doesn't mean that they are not being monitored.

The DWP have very similar monitoring systems to the ones used by HMRC. They monitor how long you are taking to deal with each person/case. Every key stroke is logged on the PC, every action taken on a persons record is logged, from this log it can be identified who made the entry, what time it was done, what day it was done.

Most people who work for the DWP, especially those in customer service/facing roles will have monthly reviews/coaching where their managers can check what they have donbe and whether they have followed current guidance.

If they have not then they will be told about it and either be mnonitoreed even more closely, provided extra/refresher training, or if this is an ongoing issue then they can be put onto Managing Performance procedures, which could lead to dismissal if they don't sucessfully complete the review.

Most people I know who work for ther DWP hate the current service they are being forced to give to people, but if they want to guarantee that they still have a job and a wage coming in at the end of the month then they have to follow the rules set for them. Just as everyone in any other job has to. You cannot just go off and be a renegade just because you don't agree with what you are being told to do. If you believe that you can or should then it may explain why you yourself DJ have been out of work so long.

I don't particularly like the way HMRC does some things, but I'm not employed there to do as I please, I am employed there to perform the duties that I have been set, in the way the department expects them to be done.

Does that make me a robot or a jobsworth, possibly. Would I like to just do as I please assuming that what I am doing is within the scope of the legislation currently in place and not illegal/improper/fraudulent etc, yes I would, but there are ways of changing the system without off the reservation alone.

This is why I am involved at work with various trials aimed at increasing customer service, increasing contact types, increasing the use of technology based services such as e-mail, webchat/live help, video chat, IM etc for customers to use rather than phoning or writing. Reducinbg call waiting times and post turnaround etc etc.

You don't impose change on a department by being the one person who does as they please.

surely then people would experience a uniformed service where every adviser treats them exactly the same as any other adviser. this is not the case and it tells us adviser are making their own decisions regarding certain things. not in every aspect of the job of course.
regarding your first point how would it be picked up? does someone sit ther looking through every jsa agreement each particular adviser does? my thinking wasnt to make ever agreement i would do identical but just to design them to require a similar amount of each person. 1 person being required to do 10 actions while another have to do over 60 is not fair. especially when they are all getting the same money. i doubt they have rules written that say as an adviser you must be harsh to some and go easy with others which would then go further and say who you should be harsh with. advisers will have to expect a set minimum and anything over that is their discretion surely. i would sit and think about what i think is fair and what the dwp thinks is fair and try to strike some sort of fair balance within the rules. so i wouldnt be too slack and tell everyone they only have to do 1 action per week.

red_devil

The work programme is an utter waste of time. The providers get cash for hosting them and so they love it?

red_devil

dori2o wrote: »

This attitude would soon see you on the other side of the desk.

I know people who work for the DWP and in particular JCP.

Most of them are not being intentionally horrible or setting impossible tasks, or purposely requiring peopole to sign on daily, they are doing these things because currently those are the obligations set on them by their contract of employment.

Just because someone isn't standing over them doesn't mean that they are not being monitored.

The DWP have very similar monitoring systems to the ones used by HMRC. They monitor how long you are taking to deal with each person/case. Every key stroke is logged on the PC, every action taken on a persons record is logged, from this log it can be identified who made the entry, what time it was done, what day it was done.

Most people who work for the DWP, especially those in customer service/facing roles will have monthly reviews/coaching where their managers can check what they have donbe and whether they have followed current guidance.

If they have not then they will be told about it and either be mnonitoreed even more closely, provided extra/refresher training, or if this is an ongoing issue then they can be put onto Managing Performance procedures, which could lead to dismissal if they don't sucessfully complete the review.

Most people I know who work for ther DWP hate the current service they are being forced to give to people, but if they want to guarantee that they still have a job and a wage coming in at the end of the month then they have to follow the rules set for them. Just as everyone in any other job has to. You cannot just go off and be a renegade just because you don't agree with what you are being told to do. If you believe that you can or should then it may explain why you yourself DJ have been out of work so long.

I don't particularly like the way HMRC does some things, but I'm not employed there to do as I please, I am employed there to perform the duties that I have been set, in the way the department expects them to be done.

Does that make me a robot or a jobsworth, possibly. Would I like to just do as I please assuming that what I am doing is within the scope of the legislation currently in place and not illegal/improper/fraudulent etc, yes I would, but there are ways of changing the system without off the reservation alone.

This is why I am involved at work with various trials aimed at increasing customer service, increasing contact types, increasing the use of technology based services such as e-mail, webchat/live help, video chat, IM etc for customers to use rather than phoning or writing. Reducinbg call waiting times and post turnaround etc etc.

You don't impose change on a department by being the one person who does as they please.

totally disagree that they have to do it, they shouldn't want to be part of an organisation that is cruel and stops peoples money. People are having to visit foodbanks because of the DWP. worst case scenario some people have died.

DWP are causing great hardship across the country and treating people on benefits like crap. You don't have to carry out orders. Workers could all go on strike and refuse to treat their fellow human beings like that or find another job.

The DWP has moved from being a place once that helped people into work now its become a sanction centre all designed to trip people up and get them off the count.

I couldn't be part of that. I don't think much of people who play god with peoples money and lives.

Flyonthewall

donnajunkie wrote: »

regarding your first point how would it be picked up? does someone sit ther looking through every jsa agreement each particular adviser does? my thinking wasnt to make ever agreement i would do identical but just to design them to require a similar amount of each person. 1 person being required to do 10 actions while another have to do over 60 is not fair.

They're different based on individual situations. It wouldn't be fair if everyone had the same amount of actions and agreements, or even close.

Every agreement is entered into the system. The systems are monitored. So while not every agreement may be looked over by someone else at the time it's typed up it can be viewed at any time.

especially when they are all getting the same money.

They're not. It varies depending on age, whether you're single and your living situation.

i would sit and think about what i think is fair and what the dwp thinks is fair and try to strike some sort of fair balance within the rules. so i wouldnt be too slack and tell everyone they only have to do 1 action per week.

Advisors are monitored and have numerous rules they have to stick to and some are being forced to sanction more people. That's not right, but it's those above the advisors trying to force that to happen and advisors, obviously, don't want to lose their jobs. They don't have to be mean or anything, but they do still have that pressure.

Regardless, I'm not sure you really get what's fair. While I really dislike the job centre and there are some horrible, unfair advisors out there, I do get that the advisors are often under pressure, have rules and that every situation is different, you can't treat everyone exactly the same because that's not fair either.

Flyonthewall

red_devil wrote: »

totally disagree that they have to do it, they shouldn't want to be part of an organisation that is cruel and stops peoples money. People are having to visit foodbanks because of the DWP. worst case scenario some people have died.

DWP are causing great hardship across the country and treating people on benefits like crap. You don't have to carry out orders. Workers could all go on strike and refuse to treat their fellow human beings like that or find another job.

The DWP has moved from being a place once that helped people into work now its become a sanction centre all designed to trip people up and get them off the count.

I couldn't be part of that. I don't think much of people who play god with peoples money and lives.

While they do stop the money of many of those that don't deserve it, there are those that do deserve it.

As for great hardship, yes some people really struggle, but there are also those who are saying they can't eat yet they still have Sky TV and/or the latest smartphone. Some people are just bad with money.

They should help people out more (properly, not throw them in a WP or make them work for free) and change the way they do things so they're not under pressure to sanction people for no reason. They certainly don't need to be really cruel just because they're under pressure. However, there are two sides to it regarding the bad situations people are in. How many don't deserve to be in that bad situation and how many are there through their own fault?