There hasn't been much reaction to to those figures released yesterday. The Guardian has a long piece which airs the arguments about what the figures mean. They put to Grayling the point that the companies had "creamed off" the easiest groups, but he says they didn't. A couple of industry websites summarise the press release, which is what the government obviously wanted - a bald heading that 25% were off benefits after 36 weeks.
Channel 4 News' Factcheck blog does a reasonable job of analysis. They point out that the non-intervention rate (the numbers who would get work anyway) was supposed to be 28%, so a current figure of 24% is hardly brilliant. And, as they say, it's not even a figure for those who've found work, because people sign off for a variety of reasons. They point to ONS figures that show that in the last 3 months only 46% of those who left JSA actually went into work.
The political left naturally chooses to focus on the fact that the number of people out of work for two years has more than doubled under the current government. Left Foot Forward uses this to show that the WP is failing.
No one, apparently, can remember as far back as privatised New Deal (2006 - 2009), where the providers promised 50% job outcomes and delivered around 24%. Strange coincidence. But the WP was supposed to give the providers the ultimate incentive - payment by results. It's not working, is it?
These figures are confusing,It seems that the DWP and cohorts are putting a spin on them.The announcement today of Mandatory Community Service for the long term unemployed seems to contradict these figures.Remploy are shutting down factories,will these redundant disabled people be forced to attend ATOS? Just seems like there policies are all over the place.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of the figures. The tactic would appear to be to sow confusion! Like is not being compared with like. "Off benefit" or "break in claim" is being taken as synonymous with "in work". Different periods being used. A very limited number of cohorts is being used. Different measures of success and failure in this release and other sources (e.g. DWP's ITT).
ReplyDeleteAll in all a product of the J. Goebbels school of propaganda.
Now IF the WP was working we would be given clear and unequivocal evidence of that, such as a direct comparison with the minimum performance levels set out in the DWP's original ITT.
I deduce that the reason for all the obfuscation is to hide failure and keep the cash cow that is the WP producing for its owners as long as possible.
After all E. Harrison CBE still needs the money.
Any advise appreciated,I have been informed (verbally) that I soon will be required to participate in a six month mandatory work programme,I will be expected to work between 30/42 hours a week at a recycling centre. I have asked in writing what my duties will consist of,what is expected of myself and what can I expect of my employer.. At this time the are unable to tell me.I asked will the NMW apply..no Will travel expenses be covered?..no I brought up the point that the NMW can't be adjusted,even if both parties agree to it. The reply after a few phone calls are that I will be "Mandated" which removes this barrier,Is this possible?
ReplyDeleteYes, it's possible. Mandatory Work Activity means you have to do this or lose your benefit. The current court case (which seems to have been adjourned indefinitely unless I've missed something) will rule on this. You will get something in writing. You won't get NMW.
DeleteIs this in your jobseekers aggrement? if not say i have not consented to this, because it is not in my signed jobseekers aggrement and as signed by an advisor too. if they threating sanctions then thats illegal.
DeleteI'm not letting this get into the "It's illegal" argument. I don't think MWA has anything to do with a jobseeker's agreement. I would be really interested to see what paperwork is produced.
DeleteHere's a link to a DWP memo about selection, participation and sanction criteria for MWA.
Deletehttp://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/m-11-11.pdf
So a jobseekers agreement is not worth the paper its written on historian? and were in the jobseekers aggreement does it say will on a mandatory basis take part in a placement for not minimum wage but for the equivilent of a persons jobseekers allowance, for a 30 hour week?
DeleteNo more argument on this, or publishing your comments unless you get a pseudonym.
DeleteYes,the confusing part is that the HMRC has declared unpaid internships/work experiences are in violation of the NMW with the exception being, that no work is performed,I still would of thought transportation costs would of been covered.In relation to Cait Reilly ,it has gone really quiet,I wonder if pressure is being applied to delay a ruling for as long as possible?
ReplyDeleteIs jray being sent on Mandatory Work Activity or is s/he being sent on the thing called CAP, which I think means Community Action Programme or something similar? There are probably different rules according to the exact name of each scheme and CAP is not the same thing as MWA.
ReplyDeleteI read that the judgement about Cait Reilly and Jamieson Wilson is not going to be given immediately. The Boycott Workfare website said this but they don't seem to have been told when the judgement can be expected.
Mr Wilson is a garage mechanic from Birmingham. He has been unemployed for four years. Someone tried to send him to do CAP for six months. He refused and so his Benefit has been stopped for six months.
Despite the claimed "brilliance" of the Work Programme scheme, common-sense and flexibility are not two of its features.
ReplyDeleteThere are hundreds of Work Programme customers who either have current SIA licences or their licences have expired recently but could have been renewed for about £150 per guard if A4E and their ilk had used their loaves. Investing in new SIA licences for this group of WP customers could have been done cheaply if any of the WP providers had bothered to do it. Many, many of the customers would have leapt at the chance to be able to use their skills and training during the Olympics.
Emma Harrison would have been able to proclaim herself to be the Saviour of the Olympics (not to mention the Saviour of all the SIA licence holder customers on A4E's books.)
On top of the SIA licences, A4E would also have had to pay for accommodation, food and transport for all the A4E-supplied security guards but A4E is one of the WP Providers in the London Borough of Newham, where the Olympic Park has been built. Hiring a fleet of coaches is not that expensive, nor is filling cheap hotels in somewhere like Essex.
G4S were planning to make around £400 million for themselves out of providing 10,000 security guards for the Olympics. They now say that they can only provide about 4,000 guards but surely G4S had already worked out the logistics of providing accommodation, food, transport and uniforms for 10,000 guards?
Grayling would have been able to swagger and brag about how his brilliant new wheeze of the Work Programme scheme had saved the day without any need to bother the Army, and so forth.
This lot can't find the brewery next door, let alone organise the p*ss up, it seems to me. Grayling, G4S, A4E and the rest are all as disorganised and as incompetent as each other, it would appear.
I'm not sure what A4e has to do with this. The government, or LOCOG, put the security work out to tender and G4S got the contract. It seems that they left employing people till the last minute because they didn't want to pay them until they had to. And it all went pear-shaped.
DeleteLast time I went to A4E one of the guys there was saying his SIA needed renewing and they said they'd pay for it. I guess they expected him to get a job pretty quickly once that was done and then they could claim the fee for getting him in to work.
DeleteAnyway, what I am saying is that at my A4E office at least, they do pay for SIA renewals
Today i attended a blue apple talk by a private company at interserve at leeds. something about a btec qualification in employability, with consisted of sitting in a classroom doing mock interveiws etc. at the end a person recieves a certificate. my question what is a private comapy doing in another private company trying get people to sign up to this course? it was a case of trying to shame people to go on their b tec course, by more or less saying its your faults your unemployed, and our course is the answer to all your problems, apparently 11 people in the last few weeks have secured jobs through blue apple, a statement i did not believe, i think the point is blue apple profit by selling yet another silly course and claim tax payers money for every person they put through this b tec employability course. what we need is REAL job creation and not pointless courses like this. and people made to think if they dont partake on this course they dont want a job, which is more or less what was said during the talk.
ReplyDeleteThe company (http://blueappletraining.com/) sells short courses to the providers. All such "motivational" courses seem insulting to those who don't need motivating or patronising. The providers, like Interserve, will be funding this themselves.
Delete