Sunday 16 December 2012

Punishing your customers

That sounds ridiculous - you don't punish your customers.  It would make more sense, of course, if we didn't use the totally inappropriate word "customers" when talking about the Work Programme.  A4e uses it, and I'm not sure how many other providers do, but it's one of those weasel words, distorting the language.  A customer is someone who buys goods or services.  That means that the customer of A4e is the DWP which commissioned their services, or the taxpayer who foots the bill - not the person who is required to turn up.  So I prefer the word "clients".
Okay, why would you punish your clients?  That seems to be what A4e and the rest are doing, as more and more people are "sanctioned".  Let's dispose of the myth, perpetuated by Jonty Olliff-Cooper, that it's not A4e which sanctions people, it's the DWP.  As someone pointed out, that's like saying that it's not the traffic warden who gives you a parking ticket, it's the local council.  And now that punishment means at least 3 months of destitution, the situation is really serious.  
If it's a case of people refusing to engage with the WP, or any other programme, altogether, then they know what the penalty is.  But I'm hearing more and more stories of punishment for supposed failures to comply which are very worrying.
I'm not naive.  I know that there are two sides to every such story, and I don't automatically believe what I'm told.  How could I?  But much of it rings true.  For instance, we learned recently that one in five of all the homeless people referred to the WP has been sanctioned.  It's not difficult to see how that could come about.  Homeless people can't lead organised lives, and they can't rely on getting any post.  But what about all the stories of people being punished for missing appointments they weren't aware of, or being told that an appointment was being changed and then being punished for not attending on the original date?  Such incidents have been described in comments on here, and in others which I haven't published.
There seems to be something terribly wrong with the systems, and I don't know whether they are peculiar to A4e.  Perhaps an employee could tell me whether I've got this right.  When a client is perceived to have done something wrong, like missed an appointment, a click of the mouse "raises a sanction doubt".  This may be accompanied by an explanation, but the "doubt" stands.  The system then sends all these to a central point, which forwards them, often minus the explanation, to the DWP.  The client is then notified by the DWP that he's being punished.  Thus, someone who has been told that he needn't attend an appointment because he'll be away on a training course gets his income stopped.  The articulate and persistent client can sometimes fight these sanctions, but the misery they are causing is immense.  The system should be changed.
There's another worrying trend.  Hostility between client and adviser is nothing new, and is inevitable sometimes.  But more people are reporting encounters which go against the DWP's own guidance on the behaviour of the professionals.  I recall the middle-aged chap who said he came back from his first appointment almost in tears at the bullying nature of the meeting.  A woman talks about her husband being spoken to as if he were a naughty child.  And I recently had a horrifying comment which I couldn't publish because it identified the people concerned (please, please will the author of that get back to me) describing how an ex-soldier has been punished for not showing due respect to his "adviser".  Respect, certainly in this case, doesn't seem to work both ways.
Most clients, I know, have good, friendly relationships with the staff employed to work with them.  There will always be a small minority who really shouldn't be in the job, or whose training has been inadequate.  But now, with pressures on staff ever greater and punishments so severe, the situation does seem to be getting worse.  And that's dangerous.
The question remains: why would you punish your clients?  Every client represents an opportunity to make a profit, and the DWP's answer to failing providers is to take away the clients.  I asked the same question back in June when it was reported that in the first 8 months of the programme A4e had requested 10,120 punishments, only 3,000 of which had been accepted by the DWP.  Don't those figures show what's wrong?  At the time Corporate Watch said, "By the time it's finished, more people will have been sanctioned by the Work Programme than properly employed through it."  How true.  And why?  The answer must be that every punishment is seen as a warning to others.
Please note that I can't deal with "not for publication" comments by giving individual advice or answering questions.  If you have a query or want to say something, please frame it in such a way that I and the regulars can respond on the blog.

33 comments:

  1. Job Centre Plus use "customer" it as well. It's a DWP wide policy, I find it very disingenuous because it's not coupled with the same mutual respect that I would expect as a customer.

    I believe I have been sanctioned for not disclosing all the contact details and photographic evidence of every job I applied for this month. I have data protection concerns over this, can anyone advise?

    I honestly believe there are targets in the Work Programme for sanctions, and at a top level they are encouraged to sanction in order to keep the DWP contract holders happy. Defer the blame into a private company that is harder to investigate and scrutinise.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It worries me a lot about sanctions, as if I'm sanctioned just for 2 weeks I wouldn't be able to catch up with paying bills. I don't know about others but my advisor gives me a letter stating my next appointments/job clubs etc, and if the appointment is changed she either texts me or writes me a letter, so I always have evidence. And I keep every bit of correspondence until not needed (even texts & emails)
    I realise how easy it could be for an advisor to make up reasons for sanctioning you if they so desire to. They could very easily say they changed your appointment & sent a letter when they didn't. I know I'm a "client" that is very hard to get into employment by A4e & A4e cannot do much for me that I'm not doing already. I've been there a year & had 1 interview, so maybe their only option is to hope I do something wrong & sanction me. It's very scary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. A4E raised a “sanction doubt” about me at the beginning of October 2012. I then had a letter from the DWP about 7 weeks later, asking why I had missed my appointment with A4E? The DWP letter was in a standard format that gave no indication about whether A4E had given the DWP any explanation about why I had missed my appointment with A4E.

    I replied to the DWP’s letter in good time, providing the DWP with a detailed explanation and, so far, I have not heard anything more about it. However, the DWP clearly have a backlog in dealing with these “sanction doubts” so it is too early for me to relax about it just yet.

    It would be absurd if the DWP were to sanction me over this one missed appointment. If they try to sanction me, I’ll go straight to the CAB and find out how to appeal against an unreasonable decision.

    On the day in question, I had missed the bus. It is not a big deal. The bus company had decided to change the route of the bus, therefore they had changed their timetable as well but they had only just made the changes and I had not been aware that the bus company had planned this alteration.

    I spend my life swopping e-mails with my A4E adviser anyway. He doesn’t have a more responsive customer than me. Also, as soon as I realised that I had missed the last bus that would have got me to my A4E appointment in time, I came straight home and phoned A4E, to tell them what had happened. My A4E adviser phoned me back about 30 minutes later – at the time when he and I should have been meeting face to face.

    My A4E adviser told me on the phone that he would be required to raise a “sanction doubt” because of my missed appointment, even though A4E would have accepted my explanation about what had happened with no further grumbling. He said that he is now required to raise a “sanction doubt” regardless of whether he thinks it is reasonable to do so.

    The sanction doubt letter from the DWP came to me – in mainland England - from somewhere in Belfast. I replied to the DWP’s Belfast office in the 2nd class post envelope that they had supplied. The DWP only allowed 10 calendar days for a reply. I wondered whether 2nd class post would be good enough to get back to Belfast in 5 calendar days but I have not heard any more from the DWP, so I am waiting to see what will happen next.

    Having been one of the best postal services in the world, the Royal Mail has become one of the worst. I wondered whether to invest at least an extra £5 on sending my letter of explanation to the DWP by Special Delivery? I didn’t do so because £71 pw JSA does not enable me to afford that particular luxury.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You won't hear back from DWP immediately. In fact the JC will know before you do - within a week after I sent off my letter I think it was in my case, so you could ask them about it next time you sign. The DWP letter saying no sanction didn't come through for another 2 months.....

      I hope you got a certificate of posting though in case your letter does get lost. And a copy of the letter you sent DWP as well.

      My A4E advisor told me the same thing about them being forced to raise doubts even if you have a legitimate reason for not attending (ie in my case being semi-self employed and having some work to do on that day)

      Delete
    2. A third of all sanctions are not held by the DWP at first phase. I think this whole thing is a scheme to hurt those ignorant or unable to reply in good time. Some people have the attitude "oh what's the point appealing the sanction" because of how the Work Programme act.

      Delete
  4. A very interesting thing happened at the WP(Council) I noticed their"Travel" policy which stated that travel will not be reimbursed if your signing on time with the JCP was within 1.5 Hours of your appointment at the WP,fair enough,I pointed out that my appointment was 5 hours different,a supervisor came in and took it down and said that "It is the old policy"...Can I see the new policy?..All systems are down!..5 months later,no new policy is available,the max we will pay is £3.30 Being a bit of a "Jobsworth" I pointed out that DWP states that the"Client" shall not be worse off,they are upset and pissed off,why? because they have to refund me about £68..No because the estimated amount will be £71000.00 for all"Clients" ....Merry X-Mas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fascinating. I've just pointed out the same to my WP complaints department. I wonder if they'll be going back and refunding everyone.

      They have always said same day signing is no transport, but they don't even know what day I sign. Less they know!

      Delete
  5. i2i Pertemps is my WP Provider, and they sanctioned me in September over an appointment with them that did not even exist. I managed to get the sanction overturned in the end (I had all the relevant apointments paperwork and I stood my ground) but it goes to show how randomly some Providers are doling out sanctions nowadays. No doubt they were short of their target number of sanctions for the month and needed to make up some ground...

    ReplyDelete
  6. What we are seeing is the conversion of the providers into sanction factories. Maybe they believe that sanctioning people will earn them brownie points with the DWP (they certainly need them as they aren't getting people into jobs), and the DWP and their political masters don't care so long as the benefits bill is reduced and they can boast about being tough on scroungers. Certainly the procedurtes are lacking - there is little or no room for discretion and an assumption of guilt which is totally at odds with natural justice.
    I actually feel a measure of sympathy for some of those trying to help find people jobs in such an environment but it shows signs of only getting worse.
    The whole WP has little concept of mutual co-operation between providers and "clients" (or "stock") and the process and attitudes are now too well entrenched. Providers, DWP and politicians continue to underestimate the antagonism that their actions and policies have created, and the extent, intelligence and ingenuity of those that oppose the WP.
    Rant over.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Can we focus this thread please. Why do unemployed feel they are different from employed. If my manager/JC adviser requests I undertake a task then I undertake that task. If I do not, then I am at risk of losing my job/sanctioned.
    If my manager /adviser asks that I attend at an office on a certain day, I need to attend or risk losing my job/benefits. Lame excuses, eg bus time table would not be acceptable to my manager. Why would I excpect any different from a work program adviser.
    Employed or unemployed, we are all part of society. One should not expect different treatment from the other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Before other people get very angry, let me deal with this. If you work in anything like a normal job you do not get sacked instantly for an apparent failure to do something. If you have never been unable to get to work on time you are either very young or very lucky. (I was on a commuter train recently which came to a halt because some poor soul committed suicide by throwing herself in front of it. We were delayed by an hour and 20 minutes. People on that train missed important meetings. Should they have been sacked? I once, when unemployed, found myself at the hospital at the bedside of a friend who was dying when I was supposed to be signing on. I phoned the JC, no problem. Should I have been made destitute for 3 months?) Your point is entirely spurious and, in any case, irrelevant. What we are talking about is a system which punishes people even though they have committed no crime. Catch up, please.

      Delete
  8. Work Programme: Mr Hoban
    "....it is at the [Jonty Olliff-Cooper] provider's discretion whether to raise a compliance doubt to Jobcentre Plus for consideration. "
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121206/text/121206w0001.htm#12120660003715

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thankyou anonymous for that reference. I find it interesting because the providers always excuse their sanction raising activity on the grounds that they have no discretion - they tell us that they MUST raise a doubt (i.e. "it's not my fault, it's just the system" - usually accompanied by a sympathetic smile).
    The words "pie" and "pork" leap to mind.
    Thanks also to Historian for the excellent riposte to the other Anonymous post above.

    ReplyDelete
  10. A little advice would be welcome,through the WP I have been offered employment with a cleaning company,3 hours a day 5 days a week(with a promise of possibly more)I will still have to sign on and attend the WP,after travel expenses(weekly pass) I will be .80 pence better off,if I do not accept this job,there is a possibility of a doubt being raised..any Ideas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally I see no reason why you shouldn't take it. You won't be worse off, it is always easier to get a job when you have a job, and you can't be sent on something like MWA.

      Delete
  11. Historian,I have accepted the job(it is temp at this time) well below my skill set,but it is honest work,as JSA is the only benefit I get and will stop,why am I still required to sign on? If I don't would this effect any future benefits? Finished my MWA/WRA after 2 weeks as travel time was 4Hrs + daily,the WP adviser was upset that I thought this was unreasonable (DWP guidelines)and made a note in my file(threat?)the fact that it was for a private builder and also a friend of a WP employee was in his opinion "immaterial" am I being difficult? maybe,but they can't pick and choose which rules the will enforce.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know why you are still required to sign on, but even if you had full-time work you would still be attached to the WP. They don't let you go that easily! You do have a chance of taking some other part-time work.
      I think you were quite right to consider your WRA situation unreasonable, and I don't think the provider would want the details publicising.

      Delete
    2. You said it was 3hrs/day 5 days/week.
      That's not full time and so that's why you have to sign.

      I'm in the same situation, you'll need to fill out forms showing your payslips and they'll deduct money earned from your JSA, so since you said you'd be earning more (ie 80p better off), they won't actually pay you anything, but will send you letters which say something like "In the week xyz you earned £X and so you get paid £0 benefit"

      Delete
    3. You do NOT have to sign on if you're doing part time work - I was on a zero hour contract when I signed off.. One good reason for signing off is the DWP will be your primary "employer" and any earnings elsewhere will be taxed at the full rate on all monies. I found this out when the JCP were tardy in sending out the P45 and it took eighteen months to reclaim the overpaid tax.

      Sign off now, and you can save yourself some headaches with the tax office and still claim housing/council tax relief direct from your local council.

      Delete
  12. How does 80p p/w make you 'better off'? or in any way 'worthwhile' historian?

    Given today's 'dog-eat-dog' labour market, your claim that 'finding a job is ALWAYS easier when already employed' (Or words to that effect) is spurious at best.

    I personally know of four peole in part-time employment, who have been stuck in that employment without success in finding full-time work, for a longer period than they were successful in finding work when they were on the dole (Or in three of the cases, at any rate)

    And as far as I understand it, pretty soon P/T work won't be of any benefit/relevence regarding MWA when UC kicks in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I said that he wouldn't be any worse off, and that's true. And to say that the point about it being easier to find work when you have a job is "spurious at best" is ill-considered. The results of the WP prove that it is those closest to the labour market who get what jobs there are. If you are arguing that it's better not to work at all than work part-time and be no better off, you are playing into the hands of those who use language like "work shy".

      Delete
  13. Then why are the government soon to be targeting those who are in part-time work, AS WELL as (as opposed to ONLY) the unemployed?

    Because this fallacy of "being in work gets you work" is just that. The Govt KNOW this; and in order to issue a greater amount of 'sanctions' (God, but that word is abused) to cut the welfare bill, they will hold back zero, and punish everyone who fits their twisted concept of a 'sponger'.

    I'm sorry, but for you to say I'm playing into the hands of those who use 'workshy' because of my opinion, while at the same time cribbing about the whole ethos of the WP, smacks of hypocrisy.

    People work to live - not live to work. My issue was essentially that it's wholly unjust for ANYONE to be going to work and be a whopping 80 of the queen's new pence "BETTER OFF" whether it's one hour or one-hundred. don't forget travelling time, any unsocial hours etc.

    If the government are so keen to press their misinformed mantra that "work pays" then mkmky's is most definitely a case of proving the opposite. If I find a pound on the floor, that makes me 25% better off than mkmky would be doing his/her weekly 15hour quota.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never said it was fair. But you're missing the point. We can argue about whether being in work makes it easier to get work; I still maintain that it's the case. But the fact that he isn't worse off by working (he factored in travel expenses, remember) means that most people would say that he should work rather than claim benefits. If you say that he shouldn't, you have to explain why taxpayers should fund those benefits. To an extent I'm playing devil's advocate here, but those who clamour for "welfare reform" i.e. lower benefits have to be faced.

      Delete
    2. If it was the case that you were playing devil's advocate, you wouldn't have recommended he take the job.

      If the job was on mkymky's doorstep, then I'd suggest he/she consider it as well - but it isn't because there's travelling involved. What's up with getting someone else who lives a lot closer and is unemployed to do it? Saves mkmky the travelling time & saves the DWP (Via the taxpayer) the expense.

      When the new rules kick in, by being employed locally, both the (local) person who got the job & mkmky (If he was employed somewhere where the travelling wouldn't be as much of an issue) would be better placed to spend their 30hrs p/w doing their respective jobsearches, rather than travelling, wouldn't they?

      And do the taxpayers really advocate what is tantamount to slavery? I don't think the more informed ones do. But the agenda of the Govt. & right-wing press is to stigmatise the unemployed, and blame them for the problems they (This AND the previous Govt) caused.

      Perhaps they somehow perversely hope mkmky will join the ranks of the 'working poor' - you know, the same folk who the middle classes & above think are doing their bit while the rest of the unemployed (And 'the rest' is what they're implying) keep their curtains drawn?

      The whole idea is to make work pay, we're told. The Govt. push this fallacy that the working poor are being fleeced by the non-working - but they're the ones forcing people to work for nowt?! And what happens when there's NO unemployed poor because they've all become 'working poor'??

      Delete
    3. We'll end this here because neither of us is getting through to the other.
      We don't know what "travelling" involves in this case, but a bus ride is hardly unreasonable. And I don't know how you expect society and the economy to be organised, but in the world as it is, we get jobs where we can. It's not slavery to be paid to work. All other considerations - low pay, the benefits system, etc. - are part of a separate argument.

      Delete
  14. A work programme conscript has written a book about his experience, its entitled Disregarded.
    http://mikesivier.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/disregarded-new-book-exposes-work-programmes-failures-from-the-inside/

    ReplyDelete
  15. #1 take-home message of my experience with the WP.
    Keep a record of EVERYTHING.

    I turn on a voice recorder every time I enter their building or engage them on the phone. I keep copies of every document, and make then photocopy everything I am presented with or which I provide them with. I make them sign and date everything.

    This proved invaluable when they claimed I was to be sanctioned for non-compliance after "Missing" an appointment. I had the letter from them, cancelling the appointment, and scheduling a new one, as well as all the documents they signed and dated for me on the date they rescheduled it to, in order to prove I had attended when I was supposed to. If that had failed, I still have the recording of the phone conversation they had with me rescheduling it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is scary that we even have to do this stuff to just be treated like humans.

      Delete
  16. If I may:

    Businesses can "punish customers" by giving them fees to pay for damages or loss of bussiness, so to an extent, the term is valid, but, like you say, not when talking about A4e (or any of the other WP providers). Personally, I can't see how private companies such as A4e and G4S can submit sanction claims to the DWP. Furthermore, by having the unemployed "on their books" kind of makes them [the WP providers] unfairly (and subsequently) biased towards the DWP/government and their wishes, so really, the unemployed have no choice but to comply with any and all "requests" or risk losing money. I'll say this for the DWP/government; they sure know how to come up with some half cocked ideas.

    I've been on the WP since January and I'm now onto my second advisor. The first one was actually a recruiter, but for some reason or another A4e decided in their "infinite wisdom" to get rid of all of their recruiters, so now they only have basic advisors. They apparently don't know how to send emails, as I've yet to get one from my current advisor even though they have my cv and contact details on their system. Sad, but quite true.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I was late for my A4E appointment last week because of the weather we had here, none the less i contacted my adviser informing her of the situation. She told me it was fine and i continued driving through the ice and frost. When i reached A4E she told me that she had now marked me as not attending and that my benefit will be sanctioned and then sent me home again. Now i have no money over xmas to spend on my family. Merry Christmas to you too A4E.

    Note: I think it may also be appropriate to add, the only reason i am now unemployed is because the government cut the funding for my apprenticeship, forcing me out of my job and back to the jobcentre and A4E.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Someone has just left a comment, which I won't publish, which included a phone number. Let's be clear, I'm not going to phone him. However, what he said needs a response. And that's don't, unless you are very sure that you won't be rumbled.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I've just been sanctioned today by jobseekers because I refused to apply for a job they told me to apply for, I'm a 58 yr old man a ex continental haulage driver. and they told me to apply for a .... ladies hairstylist post. and nail beautision. I could not believe my ears. this chap spoke in broken english. I think he's polish. I said are you joking and he gave a little laugh and replied no. but last monday I was at A4E who tried their upmost to get me a taxi driving job 80 mile from where I live. but I dont have a taxi licence.which I was told that dosn't matter, and more to the point I dont have a car. I'm now sure I was being marked to be sanctioned this week to keep up the count.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am with a4e and I am not happy. I am autistic with other mental issues and they are pushing me into areas that I would not be suited in. My advisor even commented that if I tried to act normal and not mention any medical conditions then I should find it easier find work. The fact that I had a nervous breakdown because I was in the wrong sort of working environment before becoming unemployed was just shrugged off. No happy at all.

    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".