Only two papers have so far taken up the story of the figures revealed by Channel 4 News last night. The Daily Mail has a ball with it, of course, but basically just repeats Channel 4's press release. The Guardian is more restrained but adds nothing. So does anyone care?
One point made by Channel 4 was that, in Newham at least, A4e does less well at getting people into work than the local council's own scheme. I believe that this is true around the country. Local authorities are funding their own programmes, out of very stretched budgets, often focussing on young unemployed people. Why are they more successful than the private companies? I suggest that it's because they are willing to fund the training and qualifications that are essential. In a place like Newham, with the Olympic sites, there would have been jobs in construction and security. For both of those industries you need the qualification. Is A4e funding these? It would be very interesting to compare local council schemes' success rates with those of companies like A4e all over the country.
The DWP's stated minimum sustained jobs rate, if providers are not to lose their contracts, is 5.5%. This is pathetically low anyway, and if A4e can't even make that they obviously deserve to lose their contracts. But Channel 4 suggested last night that if all the providers were in the same boat, perhaps the answer was to give them more money up front. It isn't. The answer is to admit defeat, end the contracts and give the money to local councils, which can work with the Jobcentres.
It amazes me,reading the articles in the news A4E still protests that figures given will not reflect the actual outcome because the programme has not run long enough,that is like eating rancid meat and hoping it will get better,If A4e believes that things will improve,put up a bond or have the DWP funding suspended until the full results are in.
ReplyDeleteAbsurd - that was the word that was used to describe the idea that the Work Programme isn't working. The notion is that as the jobless are under the scheme for two years a clear picture cannot emerge until the programme has run its course.
DeleteWhere are we to go from here? I mean US the people compelled onto these schemes. All in this together, ah no! I think it's obvious that we're on our own. So what's the solution? Perhaps the Trade Union movement can begin to organise some sort of micro economy, so that the destitute will at least have SOME income for food, essential clothing, shelter.
The economy is getting worse, the government is waging some sort of war against the disadvantaged. We need to be realistic - we are on our own. The only way we are going to survive is if we help each other.
The only organisation I can see that can provide organisation and leadership in this time of crisis is the Trade Union movement to set up co-operatives for the production and sale of necessities.
We are on our own now. The government has abandoned us business only wants to use us for unpaid workfare labour, and the middle class who hold the electoral power in England don't care about us.
We need to start working together for solutions to the problems we face.
Takes time to build an address book full of employers happy to take free staff. Give them a break.
ReplyDeleteNonsense. Newham Council's own initiative leaves a lot to be desired. I work for a provider funded by both the DWP and the SFA. My team and I use whatever it takes to find participants for our programme, including recruiting from Newham Council's Workplace.
ReplyDeleteWe put in the hard work, we find people jobs and as soon as we've done that, using funds allocated to OUR company, Workplace moves in to claim a successful job outcome for their own statistics.
I don't work for A4E.
I'm not about to get into that argument, but it makes little sense to me. If a client is on your books, how can a different organisation claim an outcome? Or are you saying that they add someone to their statistics, as well as them being on yours?
DeleteAnd I say again, to everybody, GET YOURSELF A PSEUDONYM. It's impossible to have a debate with so many anonymous people.
A large number of customers on the Work Programme have placements arranged then don't turn up for interview or they get a placement and then they can't be arsed to work. They don't seem to understand that they have to PROVE to an employee they want to work and should be employed!!
ReplyDeletePossibly. But what is "a large number"? And it's only in very recent years that someone had to prove to an employer that they wanted to work by being prepared to work for no cost to the employer.
DeleteBull,I have arranged 2 placements for myself the "Provider" was unable to vet them (Quango) after 2 months,they had no placements available as they are to busy ticking boxes,most people that I have met on the WP are desperate for work,it is (and I am guessing you work for the W2W)people with your attitude that are the biggest problem.
DeleteEnd of this discussion.
DeleteStrange how individuals were able to find employment in the past without having to carry out many months of work without pay.
DeleteThis idea that the unemployed have to prove that they "really" want employment is simply a smoke screen certain employers to make money off the backs of the weak and the socially disadvantaged.
There was a reason why slavery was abolished - it was the abuse and exploitation of those with power over those who had none.
Accusing the unemployed of being to lazy to work is blaming the victims of the governments decision to hand millions and millions of pounds to the very same banks who got us into this mess in the first place.
I'm not interested in hearing employers and the "right-wing" condemn recipients of unemployment allowance as "scroungers." The companies using people for unpaid compulsory labour are not paying the national minimum wage and are stealing money from the people forced to participate.
As for the Welfare-to-Work providers, well organisations are being handed millions of pounds by the government for making people take courses on CV writing - something that I for one covered in an afternoon in an English GCSE class in secondary school.
Don't you dare call me a scrounger because I'm unemployed.
And that is definitely the end of the discussion. The last sentence is not necessary on here because I won't allow anyone to call people scroungers.
DeleteIt's not really 3.5%. It's 3.5% minus those people who would have got a job anyway without the intervention of the Work Programme.
ReplyDeleteOn a slightly different topic. Providers could be looking at another financial disaster if Cait Reilly wins her case. And judging by the feeble defence put up by the governments' QC whose seemed to be saying if you find in her favour you will put the kibosh on the governments' plans!
ReplyDeleteThe Work Programme is NOT a compulsory programme, no unemployed person has to go on it, it helps those that are finding getting back to work hard or have no references. This programme is not the same as the MWA - mandatory work activity. I have been long term unemployed and this scheme helped me back into work and I think it is a very good scheme in MY opinion.
ReplyDeleteYou're wrong on that one, unless you mean that an unemployed person is free to sign off and get no income rather than go on the WP. I'm glad it helped you. Lots of people have been helped by it.
DeleteIt is compulsory if you want to eat and pay bills.
Delete