Saturday 8 December 2012

Targets and definitions

In an outsourced society, targets are, apparently, vital.  You can't measure the success or failure of a contract without them.  When companies bid, they have to agree to meet targets.  But as we've seen so often, not meeting them doesn't matter much.  There's no penalty.  You just don't make as much profit.  But if that's already factored into your calculations, who cares?  All the Work Programme primes missed the first year target, which was pitifully low anyway.  Even delaying publication of the data for a couple of months didn't push the figures up enough.  So what happens now?  A stern letter from Mark Hoban.  Well, what else can he do?  If they've all performed equally badly, or if the differences between them are minimal, you can't penalise one and not the others.  And anyway, the only suggested penalty is to cut down the number of referrals to the worst performing companies.  For some, that would be welcome, since they can't cope with the numbers they've got.
There are other targets, unofficial ones, which do have an impact, but on clients rather than the companies.  Think of Atos.  Both the DWP and Atos have denied that there are any targets for getting people off incapacity benefits.  But whistle-blowers among Atos staff have said that they are indeed given targets and are pressured to meet them.  And now we have the Universal Jobmatch site.  Again, the official line, in all the guidance, is that it's not compulsory for people on JSA to register with it.  But we know that people are being told, by both JC and Work Programme advisers, that it is compulsory, because they have been given targets, and it's easier to give orders than to persuade.

Two other words have become part of the language of welfare-to-work, and in the process have been neutralised.  The first is "mandatory".  We all know what it means in practice.  But it somehow sounds better than its dictionary definition (a real, physical dictionary, my copy of the Concise Oxford, 8th edition) which is simply "compulsory".  So let's not talk about people being "mandated".  They are compelled.
Even more weasly is the word "sanction".  It's an interesting word, because it can mean two very different, almost opposite, things.  One meaning is approval.  The other is penalty.  And it's the second meaning, of course, which pertains here.  When people don't do what they are compelled to do they are penalised - punished.

So if you're an outsourcing company which has failed to meet its targets, you can't be penalised.  But if you're a client, you can be told that something is compulsory when it isn't and penalised for not doing it.

25 comments:

  1. At times I feel that I must be a bit dim,I have (In there terms agreed to a contract) but they have altered this at their will,they DWP,JCP and the Prime(Subs)feel that this is their right,am I wrong in thinking that once a contract is agreed upon that it must be upheld by both parties?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Spot on here with this article. I myself have been to be fair politely told by my JC advisor (who is actually ok) that UJ is compulsory and that I must allow him access to my account so he can check my job search activity. I have no problem with HIM doing this but the system is open to abuse. We will see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gissajob is right. And by letting your jobcentre monitor your activity you leave yourself open to sanctions.

      "The system is open to abuse"! The abuse is already being perpetrated on you by your adviser who told you UJ was mandatory!!

      Delete
  3. Thankyou Historian. You exctly sum up the double standards which apply.
    @anonymous (above) you say "I have no problem with HIM doing this "
    Really? But it's not just HIM - it's anybody within the JCP - including your adviser's superiors and, doubtless. his successors when he moves on.
    UJ is not compulsory and it certainly cannot be compulsory to allow them access to your account. So your adviser has lied to you on at least two counts, and you still trust him!

    ReplyDelete
  4. A bit of a dilemma,after approaching the Sub regarding the WRA/MWA that I was required to perform(with no chance of a job at the end)travel time and expenses were brought up,their stance was "this is our policy"but it contradicted the DWP guidelines,that the client should not be out of pocket,they finally gave me the difference, but should this not apply to all the travel that I have made over the last 13 months?and should this not also apply to all that have participated? My Adviser,whom I actually get along with (he is jumping ship along with 5 others to different Council work) called me a "pain in the ass" and guess what? he is right!they apply the rules and enforce them,this travel problem will cost them over £60.000 and I have been verbally asked to let it be.I will probably be shooting myself in the foot,but how do I proceed?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you mean you shouldn't have had to pay any of your travel expenses on the WP, that's never been the policy, and I can't see that changing.

      Delete
    2. They refund my travel when I go in to do job search etc, and seem to do so for everybody else who goes to the same office as me, but then I've never had to do MWA or anything like that. I've never asked them to refund interview costs as I assumed they wouldn't. They do however say they will buy you interview clothes if you don't have them.

      Delete
    3. Historian,I have never found you to be wrong,but in this instance you are,they may direct you to show up on the same day as you sign on(within a reasonable time)but under DWP guidelines "the client will not be out of pocket"the cost will be funded by the Provider,Google travel costs to the WP....In short they"the WP"have been taking the piss.

      Delete
    4. Sorry Google DWP FAQ work programme questions.

      Delete
    5. I never claimed to be omniscient! I was going by previous programmes.

      Delete
    6. Accepted,but if everybody complained it will bring this programme to it's knees! They are abusing the "Clients"and claiming that is is right"BS..I have been told "verbally' Not to stir the pot,as a standard of what I call the rights of the Unemployed,I believe that you will support this,you are a person that believes in what she purports.

      Delete
    7. I'm not arguing! Bear in mind, though, that WP advisers will often not know as much as you do.
      As a life-long trouble-maker, allow me to give you some advice. Go quietly. Disagree, show the documentation, be polite. When that doesn't work, use the system, to complain, and escalate it. I'm definitely not saying don't get angry; but use that anger to achieve something.

      Delete
    8. I must agree,I am polite,but it frustrating,they purport that this is right and tout the rules,but do not abide by them..

      Delete
    9. I have received a letter in the post today,I must attend on the 21st to meet my new Adviser,the 6th one in 12 months,I will bring up Travel expense's not only for myself but all other clients,granted it is only a few pounds monthly,but multiply that by 800.000 and we are into some serious money(my Sub has 4670 clients)times 18 months equals a lot.

      Delete
  5. I haven't been told by anyone I have to sign up to UJ or allow anyone access. I certainly won't be allowing them access though if I'm asked to I'll simply say if they want to check the jobs I'm applying for I save all my emails of jobs applied for and correspondence & will show them it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Suggest you also mention the security issues raised by the PCS about UJ when your jobcentre does ask.

      Delete
  6. Hi mkmky,
    On the subject of travel expenses. You are right!
    I cannot do better than quote the DWP in their original ITT Document:
    http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/work-prog-itt.pdf
    "Annex 8
    Additional Information
    Travel, Additional Costs and Additional Support
    A8.01 Customers should not be worse off by virtue of attending employment programmes. Providers are responsible for travel, childcare, replacement caring costs and additional support costs while the customer is on the WP. The following paragraphs provide the guidelines used by Jobcentre Plus when determining financial support in these areas.
    Travel expenses
    A8.02 When the Customer attends either an interview with the Provider, a job interview arranged by the Provider or undertakes other Work related Activities the Provider is responsible is for funding the customers travel costs"
    Forgive the poor (or lack of) use of the apostrophe - their mistake not mine - I merely quote them.
    I see no room here for "ifs" "buts" or "maybes". You should be getting all your "work related activity" related travel expenses refunded in full. This includes all appointments at the provider, all travel to and from unpaid work and all travel to and from all job intrviews arranged by the provider.
    There really should not be any argument.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Actually this also covers all WP appointments,they will try and set them up at the same time as your JSA,as we/you are responsible for the cost,but this is sometimes not the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They really aren't that organised! Round here I think that JCP and the Providers don't talk to each other - unless they really have to. JCP always seem interested to know what the providers are up to, how often we are seen etc. etc, - but it seems to me that they try to get this info from the victims rather than asking the providers!

      Delete
    2. Actually, they'll only pay your travel if you have a return ticket, so they try to have me do job search etc on the day that I sign, so I make one bus journey to the JC, one from there to the WP and then a third bus journey home. I end up spending abut £10, but as it's all single journeys none of it is refundable. I suppose I could try getting return tickets, but it would take me an extra two hours to get home.

      And, yes, they have said they try to set up as many appointments on the same day as possible, but in actual fact they don't seem to be able to do this because trainers, advisers etc are always booked up so for example next week I have to go in three times, and they will be paying my travel each time (which will amnt to about £22 in total) because they can't schedule the appointments on the same day.

      Delete
  8. To the Anonymous who began a comment "I've been an avid follower of this blog" - I can't publish your comment as it is because it identifies you, but what you've said is important. Could you send me a comment headed "not for publication" and include your email address? I'd like to correspond with you away from this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  9. As an ex-senior employment advisor for a WP contractor and charity, I am currently delivering training to a small group of clients who have been told that they MUST register for UJ and take in their Govt. Gateway user details. I have advised them of this site and others, stating that the UJ is not mandatory, and advsing them of the potential threat towards their privacy.

    Evidence from my clients shows a definite "swing" towards the new increased sanctions regime being applied. For instance, one client was referred to our 2 week training course by his JCP Advisor. When he questioned about his signing appointment that would fall when he will be with me, the advisor stated that he "could sign on later that day". He has an email from his advisor to confirm this. However, when he went to sign on last Tuesday, the security desk would not let him in as he had "missed his appointment". Guess what? A 4 week sanction has now been applied! 2 weeks before Christmas...No appeals, no apology!

    As I mentioned, I have been working on FND 2011 and then WP since June last year. However, the moral dilemma that I faced on a daily basis, coupled with increased pressures from the Prime to report "complance doubts" for every customer infraction, has lead me to step away from the industry.

    I will continue to take an avid interest in your blog, as I can't wait for the whole thing to come crumbling down. My only reservation about that day though, is that many well-meaning supportive WP advisors will be out of work...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Surely, if the client has an email from the advisor stating that they can sign on later that day then that can be used as evidence to appeal against the sanction?

      Delete
  10. 4.5 weeks into UJM and still no mention of it at our Jobcentre - signed on this morning with no problems at all - only took 25 seconds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I lasted signed on and mentioned that I had read quite a few negative things about UJM, my advisor said there was a lot of "scare mongering" going around at the moment. People having their details read by any Tom, Dick or Harry that registers as an employer isn't exactly "scare mongering", it's something that happens on a daily basis and at some point will cause major problems.

      Delete

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".