But all publicity is good, and that seems to be the theory behind an otherwise pointless interview in the Guardian last week. The writer, Jane Dudman, asks, "Why does she think she attracts such attention? 'I'm a girl,' she says, self-deprecatingly." Hmm. There is more on the Harrison legend of her start in the business, and then: "She is clear that A4e is not a social enterprise. 'It's a social purpose company,' she says, firmly. And despite the fact that she now employs more than 3,000 people, Harrison says she is still very entrepreneurial. 'I love creative leadership,' she says. 'And what's different now is that I don't have to worry about whether the photocopier's working.' " Dudman doesn't choose to probe the extent of the profits, but she ends the piece with: "Harrison's company is already the largest private contractor for welfare to work services, but she's keen to take on more. She takes a fierce line on job searching, saying job opportunities do exist, even in the midst of the worst recession since the 1940s. 'That upsets me the most. It gives people a reason to give up. A4e is famous for finding the hidden jobs. I promise you they're out there.' As public spending cuts begin to bite seriously, Harrison's theory stands to come under severe test. Many of those presently employed in the sector will certainly be hoping she is right." Yes, Jane, and many of the unemployed will be wondering where those "hidden jobs" are.
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
More publicity
Do you remember "Benefit Busters"? It was screened a year ago, but many of us recall at least the first two episodes, filmed in A4e offices. Now read Emma Harrison's account of how it was made, in an article she chose to post yesterday. Is this an attempt to expunge the memory of that second episode in Hull, where groups of clients were filmed doing useless, time-filling exercises; where one staff member spoke incredibly rudely to a client? Perhaps that was "gritty". Has she forgotten the interview where she was asked about the problem of benefits loss when people take casual jobs? She laughed, you remember, and said, "How should I know?" before promising to take it up with her friends in government. We all have embarrassing memories, but we don't publicise them a year on. "Benefit Busters" exposed what taxpayers' money was actually paying for with New Deal, but Harrison seems to believe that it was a triumph for her and for A4e.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Available jobs? WHAT AVAILABLE JOBS? i vey rarely get angry but this woman harrison makes me, the bile that comes out of her mouth.
ReplyDeleteShe who must be believed!
ReplyDeleteEd balls, jobs and PLACEMENTS for the unemployed, by placement i take it you mean workfare working for nothing?
ReplyDeleteEd. so who gets a job, and who gets workfare er i mean a "placement"? why should someone recieve a wage and the other person work for nothing? is that not discrimination? the whole idea is ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI've just discovered that prior to undertaking the unpaid placement the jobseeker is transferred from Jobseekers Allowance to a 'Training Allowance' which pays the same ammount, and is issued with a P45U.
ReplyDeleteI'm no expert, but I assume the issuing of a P45U is simply a device to allow the jobseeker to undertake the placement without being required to sign at the jobcentre on for those 4 weeks.
I totally agree with other posters on this topic, the whole thing is scandalous.
This idea of working for nothing (and being grateful for it) is not confined to those on JSA. Increasingly, graduates are expected to work for months as "interns" for nothing, to get experience. That really is exploitation, since they can't even claim JSA.
ReplyDeleteThe issuing of a P45U effectively removes the claimant from the unemployment count; for statistical purposes they are treated as being in employment.
ReplyDeleteWith a mimimum wage, is it not illegal for a person to work for nothing? if a person is on a "placement", and is not recieving training on his/her placement and is doing the same job as the paid people working beside them then that must be illegal? would the placement have to prove they are recieving no training? the other side is "work experince" well again if a person is doing a job then they should be paid the going rate for that job, to not be paid is slavery, and how is a person going to be motivated working for nothing? how wil they feel beside people recieving a wage while they recieve nothing? what if long term "workfare" comes in? how many depressed people will there be people working for nothing long term how would that make them feel? the people who come up with these ideas have no idea at all regarding people they are cold selfish cut off from whats real, what we need is a new way but what is that way? any ideas? mybe the letts system please read about the letts system if your not familiar with it.
ReplyDeleteRemember that someone on benefits is not "working for nothing" if they're on a work placement which is supposed to give them experience of working! They are still receiving their benefits plus a bit more. However unfair it feels, it's not illegal. Providers like A4e can point to a lot of people who got actual jobs out of a work placement - although the majority don't. The real issue is that, if there is work to be done out there, pay people to do it.
ReplyDeleteI know no one who as secured a job through a work placement, and i talk to alot of people.
ReplyDeleteI suspect I've met rather more unemployed people than you, and I have known a few people who have secured a job that way. It's a small percentage, admittedly.
ReplyDeleteSo your to be "offered" work or a "placement" what if dont want a placement but a job? after all a "placement" is working for nothing. so a guy could be on a placement working next to a guy doing the same job and that guy gets paid for it!!! i agree with the top comment claim what you can, work while claiming jobseekers allowance, because believe me in this ridiculous system there is no so called blacl economy, or benifit fraud.
ReplyDeleteYou have a point about work placements, but in theory they give people experience of going to work, something to put on their CVs, and the opportunity to secure a permanent job. It CAN work, but most often doesn't, because there aren't enough employers willing to take people on genuine work placements. Of course people resent working for just £15 pw week more than benefit when there's nothing at the end of it. But if you think that's a reason for defrauding the system and taking money away from the rest of us, I disagree.
ReplyDeleteWhats a "geniune" work placement! you still work for nothing. And if it became mandatory then thats slavery.
ReplyDeleteI understand that some people feel very strongly about some issues, but I'm rejecting some comments which are obsessing about this topic. The above is representative. Try to see it from the point of view of someone who is not on JSA. You are not working for nothing; you get benefit and a bit extra. Most people think that you should be required to do something for that money. I stress that I am opposed to "work for your benefit" because it's punitive and because if there are jobs to be done, pay people to do them. But there are "genuine" work placements where people get, at the very least, useful experience and, at best, a job at the end of it.
ReplyDeleteIt's pointless to protest that such placements are illegal - they're not if the government decides that they're not.
And "a bit more"!, look it is proposed a person should WORK full time, for a "bit extra", this is workfare its slavery its as simple as that. PAY THE GOING RATE AND EVEN THATS PATHETIC 10 POUNDS AN HOUR MINIMUM.
ReplyDeleteDo something for 30 pounds a week on jobseekers allowance! so thats what 6 hours work okay id do that fair enough but thats it. any more is slavery do you agree?
ReplyDeleteYou have a fair point, but I don't agree with your choice of words.
ReplyDeleteThis subject is now closed unless anyone has a different point to make!