walked out of jobcentre work experience

topaztiger1983

I agree that there should be a chance of a job at the end of it, but then I have known people who have got jobs after "work experience", so sometimes they do offer jobs at the end

NewShadow

dktreesea wrote: »

But it's possible, especially if there are children and/or housing benefit is being paid, that the value of the benefits being paid far exceeds the full time NMW.

According to the telegraph the average number of hours worked in the UK is 31.67, which at (25+) min wage would be a salary of £10,393

That's £200 (or more accurately 199.87) per week.

JSA is apparently currently £73.10 per week for a single person (25+)

Add in any CTC, LHA, free dentist, glasses, prescriptions, utilities discounts (subject to provider and circumstances), free courses (subject to provider and circumstances), free or reduced entry to events/activities (subject to provider and circumstances).

Then minus commuting costs, work clothes, lack of opportunity to get to the shops at reduction times.

It wouldn't be hard to think that someone fairly frugal could be better off unemployed.

When you only look at the renumeration of course.

dktreesea

andygb wrote: »

If they MAKE people work 30 - 35 hours a week then they sgould be prepared to pay NMW for it, irrespective of whether it is for a non profit or commercial enterprise.
As I have said before, jobseekers are not criminals so they should not be forced to do community service.;)

But that won't be the deal. Instead it will be work these hours, where we want you to work, in exchange for whatever benefits you get, be it £73 a week, in which case maybe you'll only be required to work 10 hours a week (i.e. the dole translated into NMW) or, say, £400 a week if you have a stay at home spouse and a couple of kids, in which case you could be required to put in 35 hours a week to justify the benefit.

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Most people manage to do all of the above whilst holding down a full time job, as I'm sure you've done previously.

And this is the reason why. Most people get a job while they still have their current job. They don't become unemployed, unless the gap between them leaving their old job and starting the new one counts. The idea will be if people working full time can cope, then so can the unemployed.

dktreesea

NewShadow wrote: »

According to the telegraph the average number of hours worked in the UK is 31.67, which at (25+) min wage would be a salary of £10,393

That's £200 (or more accurately 199.87) per week.

JSA is apparently currently £73.10 per week for a single person (25+)

Add in any CTC, LHA, free dentist, glasses, prescriptions, utilities discounts (subject to provider and circumstances), free courses (subject to provider and circumstances), free or reduced entry to events/activities (subject to provider and circumstances).

Then minus commuting costs, work clothes, lack of opportunity to get to the shops at reduction times.

It wouldn't be hard to think that someone fairly frugal could be better off unemployed.

When you only look at the renumeration of course.

Which is why the government wants some blood for the taxpayer's money. The attitude is if a person who is working is worth, on the average hours you mentioned, £10,393 and the unemployed person receiving benefits is getting more than that, then they should have to put in the hours at the NMW that is equivalent to their benefit, capped at full time hours.


I'm okay with that, as long as everyone on the dole has to do it, once the six months or whatever it is for those getting contribution based JSA has passed, and it's not at a for-profit organisation.


It would also line up well with the plans for the self employed, as in people who want to be excused from doing community work for their benefits and work their own business instead get treated as if they are earning the NMW for the hours they are meant to work in order to calculate their benefits. Well, that's the plan under UC. At the rate they are going, we'll all be retired by the time they bring it in for existing claimants.


This would be a similar outcome. The unemployed person would have to put in the hours they are meant to work, valued at the NMW but in a community work placement, in order to justify their benefits. If the only UC they get is £73 a week, then they would only have to put in ten hours a week. If they get HB, CTB, CB, CTC and whatever else is there to claim wrapped up in their UC, then maybe both parents (if the stay at home spouse has a work requirement because of having older children) might have to put in community hours too.


Here in the UK, the government might call all these programmes they have going "welfare to work" schemes, but really what they mean is having to work for welfare American style. It's coming, but the only way I see it working here is if the work is all community based, not for profit work.

Mrs_Ryan

I did work experience with the CAB. It was essentially a roomful of people who moaned non stop about being 'forced' to be there. On the first day the supervisor went round everyone and asked when their sign on dates were. When she got to me she looked puzzled when I told her I don't sign on. When she asked why I told her because I'm on ESA. Oh, she said, we don't usually get people on ESA. There were several in the room who had been kicked off ESA and so consequently they moaned bitterly when they found out I was there entirely of my own volition.
I lasted until the end of week 1 after I had a bad fall and was hospitalised but I quite enjoyed my time there and would have stayed if I hadn't had the accident. Not one of the others on the course wanted to be there and I felt really sorry for our trainer as she was actually really nice but fighting a losing battle.
I couldn't help thinking it was counter productive as those forced to be there would no doubt not produce the best work and therefore that has a knock on effect to the business. Being in the ESA Support Group and not having to undertake any work related activities I was shown a list of available placements and was able to choose. Instead of just being forced to go somewhere perhaps there could be more of an element of choice. If someone wants to work in a shop, great- send them there but if someone wants to do something else- give them the option.
I did work experience at a training provider teaching literacy and numeracy to adults and at the end the big boss came to see me and said it was rare they had volunteers like me. I loved every single minute- because it was a placement I had chosen. I had to take a week off when I was admitted to hospital with gallstones but they understood and allowed me back afterwards- I rang every single day to keep them updated just as I had to when I was employed.
When someone had enthusiasm and passion for something surely productivity will be better. But when it's a box ticking exercise these things don't usually matter...

mattcanary

Mrs_Ryan wrote: »

I did work experience with the CAB. It was essentially a roomful of people who moaned non stop about being 'forced' to be there. On the first day the supervisor went round everyone and asked when their sign on dates were. When she got to me she looked puzzled when I told her I don't sign on. When she asked why I told her because I'm on ESA. Oh, she said, we don't usually get people on ESA. There were several in the room who had been kicked off ESA and so consequently they moaned bitterly when they found out I was there entirely of my own volition.
I lasted until the end of week 1 after I had a bad fall and was hospitalised but I quite enjoyed my time there and would have stayed if I hadn't had the accident. Not one of the others on the course wanted to be there and I felt really sorry for our trainer as she was actually really nice but fighting a losing battle.
I couldn't help thinking it was counter productive as those forced to be there would no doubt not produce the best work and therefore that has a knock on effect to the business. Being in the ESA Support Group and not having to undertake any work related activities I was shown a list of available placements and was able to choose. Instead of just being forced to go somewhere perhaps there could be more of an element of choice. If someone wants to work in a shop, great- send them there but if someone wants to do something else- give them the option.
I did work experience at a training provider teaching literacy and numeracy to adults and at the end the big boss came to see me and said it was rare they had volunteers like me. I loved every single minute- because it was a placement I had chosen. I had to take a week off when I was admitted to hospital with gallstones but they understood and allowed me back afterwards- I rang every single day to keep them updated just as I had to when I was employed.
When someone had enthusiasm and passion for something surely productivity will be better. But when it's a box ticking exercise these things don't usually matter...

An organisation whose job is to give impartial advice to members of the public, taking part in Workfare? That is really worrying.....

Flyonthewall

Mrs_Ryan wrote: »

I couldn't help thinking it was counter productive as those forced to be there would no doubt not produce the best work and therefore that has a knock on effect to the business. Being in the ESA Support Group and not having to undertake any work related activities I was shown a list of available placements and was able to choose. Instead of just being forced to go somewhere perhaps there could be more of an element of choice. If someone wants to work in a shop, great- send them there but if someone wants to do something else- give them the option.

I agree. I think this is really important.

Sure if you get sent somewhere unrelated to the work you want to do you may get a transferable skill or two, but chances are you won't work to the best of your ability, it can make you depressed, you still struggle to get into the area you want to work because the job isn't the right type of experience and you may well not have the skills to do the wok experience job properly/well hence why you're not looking to do that as a paid job.

The work experience may prove you can show up on time and do as you're told, but that's about it unless you want to work in that area. Doesn't show you're even willing to stick it out because you really have no choice in the matter (it's that or no money to live off).

I was sent to one place, but it wasn't what I wanted to do. Had done it before, but wasn't really for me. I was glad when I was then sent elsewhere to do a different job I was good at and it was something I'd happily do as a paid job. When the forced volunteering ending I still continued to volunteer by choice. Not only was I happier but it looks far better on my CV.

The choice was very limited though and mostly retail and it was through a WP. Usually you get no choice at all, it's just wherever the JC send you.

theoretica

dktreesea wrote: »

I'm okay with that, as long as everyone on the dole has to do it, once the six months or whatever it is for those getting contribution based JSA has passed, and it's not at a for-profit organisation.

I am pretty confident that it has occured to the government that it would be nice if the JSA were paid by the for-profit organisation for providing these workers, sort of like an agency, to recoup the benefits paid out. If they aren't, and I haven't heard that they are, I think it is worth reflecting on why that may be. Maybe it would be clearer if the work was paid for and the for-profit companies were also paid for arranging the placements.

Mrs_Ryan wrote: »

I couldn't help thinking it was counter productive as those forced to be there would no doubt not produce the best work and therefore that has a knock on effect to the business. Being in the ESA Support Group and not having to undertake any work related activities I was shown a list of available placements and was able to choose. Instead of just being forced to go somewhere perhaps there could be more of an element of choice. If someone wants to work in a shop, great- send them there but if someone wants to do something else- give them the option.
I did work experience at a training provider teaching literacy and numeracy to adults and at the end the big boss came to see me and said it was rare they had volunteers like me. I loved every single minute- because it was a placement I had chosen. I had to take a week off when I was admitted to hospital with gallstones but they understood and allowed me back afterwards- I rang every single day to keep them updated just as I had to when I was employed.
When someone had enthusiasm and passion for something surely productivity will be better. But when it's a box ticking exercise these things don't usually matter...

This is very true - but also a lot of people who are in work don't like what they are doing and are doing the job they could get for the money. If there were enough placements, choice would be great. There would doubtless be competition for more attractive placements which could be handled in various ways - including interview and application, waiting lists while doing other placements or more hours required to reduce the applications.

bigbill

Without reading 11 pages of replies to see if already posted?


Many of the workfare options are compulsory and you are required to attend, but once there you can walk out right away without sanction or penalty?


I would say that 75% of all workfare sanctions could be overturned before any appeal as 75% of people sent on them do not get the required notifications / warnings about attendance etc so therefore cannot be sanctioned, but only if they are told this.


The CAB should not be involved in any part of Workfare, where are people who leave the CAB and are then sanctioned meant to go for advice back to the very source of the sanction, disgusting if true.

missbiggles1

mattcanary wrote: »

So why do you not campaign against companies taking part in Workfare then?
Instead of heckling jobseekers all the time?

I don't "heckle" people who are genuinely seeking work - I've spent several years of my working life helping them to do so. I have the occasional prod at a couple of people on here who are long term claimants who have no real intention of looking for work and who put up barriers to any suggestions that're offered to help them.