Thursday, 3 November 2011

Round-up, 3 November 2011

First, on Families Unlimited. The Guardian has published an amendment to its revelations about this, "Emma Harrison set up firm to pitch for government cash on project she devised". They now want to add, "Families Unlimited (the unincorporated Joint Venture set up by A4e and Gill Strachan Limited) has asked us to make clear that it was not set up solely for the purpose of bidding for European Social Fund (ESF) monies but rather to jointly develop and market their expertise in connection with the whole family/total person approach to worklessness including preparing for and submitting tenders for work with local Authorities and central government and if successful to undertake the provision of contracts. Further, we are happy to clarify that while Families Unlimited explored the possibility of acting as a sub contractor with a number of primes in bidding for ESF Funding they took a commercial decision not to do so." I'm not sure what this boils down to, other than that they are not now going for ESF sub-contracts.

There are a couple of conflicting takes on the Work Programme. One is an article in the Telegraph reporting Chris Grayling telling a business audience to use the WP providers as a kind of free recruitment agency. "They’ll get to know you and your business" he says. "They’ll get to know all the potential recruits. And they’ll bring you a small selection to choose from. Doesn’t that sound a better way to do business?” It sounds very reasonable, but is anyone else a little uneasy about the providers deciding who to put forward for a vacancy? A Labour MP, David Lammy, had a go at David Cameron about expecting the WP to be a cure-all when a tiny number of jobs are being chased by so many people. “You have described the work programme as ‘the biggest back to work programme since the 1930s’, but you know that the programme doesn’t create jobs, it merely links people up with vacancies. There are over 6,500 people unemployed in Tottenham and only 150 full time vacancies. What will your work programme do about that?” Cameron's response was to suggest that jobseekers look further afield, which didn't impress Lammy.

Google's revamp of its news feed means it's no longer possible to post links to stories. So here are a few which might interest readers. On 31 October the Telegraph reported "GPs to tell long-term jobless to find work". On 1 November the Express said, "Welfare plan 'may increase poverty'". On the same day the Guardian had a thoughtful piece called "What it's like to be young and looking for work in Britain" which looked at 10 real young people and their stories. Most important, perhaps, is a story from the BBC today. "Ministers 'consider alternatives' to 5.2 per cent benefits rise". Benefits should rise by that figure because it's the inflation figure on which all rises to benefits and pensions are based. But they think they can change the rules.

6 comments:

  1. "Families Unlimited explored the possibility of acting as a sub contractor with a number of primes in bidding for ESF Funding they took a commercial decision not to do so." I'm not sure what this boils down to, other than that they are not now going for ESF sub-contracts" I wonder if the comments on here or on other places have had an effect on that plan.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "There are over 6,500 people unemployed in Tottenham and only 150 full time vacancies. What will your work programme do about that?” Cameron's response was to suggest that jobseekers look further afield, which didn't impress Lammy."

    Cameron's 'answer' does not impress me either! The issue Cameron fails to see is this. When David Lammy says there are 150 vacancies for 6,500 jobseekers, it does not mean that jobseekers are not already looking further afield. Most probably are. Indeed, jobseekers are required to search vacancies up to 90 mins (1.5hrs) travelling time EACH way!

    Of course, Lammy is quite correct. The WP like previous progams does not create jobs. The best it can hope to do is put people in touch with vacancies, opportunities and courses. A bit like the Job Centre then...! Oh, and the council run job shop 5 mins from where I'm typing this now!

    ReplyDelete
  3. And as I posted on a post below some employers don't like you looking further afield, they won't employ you..... because apparently they are helping the "local" economy and if you live outside a 5 mile radius that's too far.

    My MP is Mr Cameron himself, so as Historian suggested, I may see what he has to say about this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I too have suffered at the hands of living too far away despite the 90 minute limitation imposed by the DWP. On paper the journey, in this case from the Portsmouth area to Reading, looks feasible however in practice the journey is anything but feasible on account of the road system. So I can see how long distance employees can prove to be a challenge should a default 9 to 5 role be a requirement. In my previous employment I commuted from Portsmouth to Camberley on a daily basis for 15 years however with that employer I had the benefit of flexible work hours, thus avoiding the mainstream traffic. My point is there are ways of getting to potential employers but it's not a default scenario as the DWP/Job Centre insist.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just a word on Google Reader. You can use Feed Demon Lite to continue to Share articles on your Google RSS feed. It seems to work at the moment anyway. Shame if you can't post anymore news items. Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete

Keep it clean, please. No abusive comments will be approved, so don't indulge in insults. If you wish to contact me, post a comment beginning with "not for publication".