I'm sorry to post only links to news items, but they are coming thick and fast, and showing how Iain Duncan Smith's grand plans continue to unravel.
First, there's an article on the Guardian's website with more evidence that the "There are no targets and no league tables" claim doesn't hold water. It includes a link to the "scorecard" - a league table by any other name - and full accounts by two different JCP staff on how the system works. The figures are interesting; 85,000 sanctions in January alone, with 24,000 of these coming from Work Programme providers. So are Duncan Smith, Mark Hoban, Lord Freud and Neil Couling (the Jobcentre Plus manager) knowingly telling porkies? Probably not. They have never issued an instruction explicitly saying, "You must punish at least x per cent of claimants to get them 'off-flow'". The pressure is more subtle than that. But the effect is the same. What's needed now is a full response from Duncan Smith
Universal Credit is also in trouble. A report tonight (see the Independent) says that the trial of this will be scaled down. There were going to be 4 areas piloting it in a month's time; now it's going to be just one, a jobcentre in Ashton under Lyne. They don't have the experience, training or computer programmes in place to do any more at present. Embarrassing.
And with the bedroom tax starting on Monday, the National Housing Federation, representing 1,200 housing associations, says that it will hurt the most vulnerable (also in the Independent). There's no need for it in many areas, and nowhere for the displaced to move to. They also point out that where disabled people have to move out of specially adapted homes, it will cost millions more to adapt their new homes. This all comes on top of Frank Field MP telling councils to brick up doors or knock down walls to avoid the tax, and Nottingham apparently re-designating lots of properties as one-bedroom.
One wonders whether any of the media have invited Iain Duncan Smith to be interviewed, particularly by someone who knows the subject.
I am wondering if the Universal Credit is going to descend into a fiasco similar to the chaos surrounding the handling of security at the London Olympics by G4S.
ReplyDeleteWill the country be faced with a scenario where social security payments are delayed, unpaid, or simply not claimed on such a scale that the Army will have to step in to provide organisation and direction? Will the forces be called in to organise feeding stations in local communities while the Universal Credit collapses?
I've followed politics for many years and Ian Duncan-Smith is the most incompetent individual I have ever witnessed serving in the Cabinet. I doubt very much that Margaret Thatcher would have allowed a major department of state to descend into this sort of anarchy.
Remember that Thatcher insisted on the poll tax, even when everybody was telling her it would be a disaster.
Deleteit will descend into the NHS IT system fiasco which started at 4 billion and ended up costing 18 bn before they pulled the plug so I expect this to go the same way like all government IT Projects do
Delete...and still no-one lost their job. £18 BILLION!!!!!!
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe poll tax failed mainly because the Scottish refused to pay it! That sort of civil disobedience was totally unprecedented in the UK.
The poll tax was a brilliant move because if successful it would have resulted in millions of poor people avoiding being listed on the electoral registers to avoid paying. Whole families did in fact simply vanished from official records overnight.
But then the Scottish ruined it all....naughty Scots.
And Scotland got the Poll Tax a year earlier than England. They can also boast to having more Pandas (2) than Tory MPs (1)
DeleteJobcentre Plus
ReplyDelete101 Old Street
Ashton-Under-Lyne
Lancashire
OL6 6BJ
This JCP will be the first to put new claimants on Universal Credit.
28 March 2013 – Universal Credit – Pathfinder update.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/newsroom/press-releases/2013/mar-2013/dwp042-13.shtml
I am starting the work programme.Im on esa. the woman at the dwp warned me to ring up and cancel if I am ill as they will be happy to sanction me. No wonder I feel really scared about it all. I feel like im walking into a lions den
ReplyDeleteDon't worry. We tend to get only the bad experiences on here, and there are plenty of good ones too. You do need to make sure that you let the provider's office know if you are too ill to attend. If you don't, it automatically goes down as a sanction doubt.
DeleteKeep a note of the time and date you rang. Also try to get the name of the person you spoke to and keep a note of that. These organisations have terrible admin. Whilst at Ingeus (on FND) I rang up to alter an appointment (put back one hour). I turned up in good time only to be berated by some young upstart for being late (I wasn't late - I was EARLY!).
DeleteAlso at A4e similarly I phoned and wrote to let them know that I couldn't attend because I had a clashing appointment at the JCP. Not enough apparently as a letter duly arrived informing me of a sanction doubt. Cue additional effort to repudiate the attempt to deprive me of income. I am still awaiting an apology in both cases!
The basic rule is cover your back at all times.
Also if you are too ill to attend, try and get a doctors note and if possible get the doctor to ring your adviser this will negate any sanction attempt by your Pirate Provider.
DeleteOff Topic:
ReplyDeleteThe Intern.
Episode 1/5, Thursday 4th April, 9pm, Channel 4
Hilary Devey wants to kick down some doors. Determined to get deserving young people a chance to land their dream jobs, she has persuaded some of Britain’s most exciting companies to let her hijack their normal recruitment policy.
http://www.channel4.com/info/press/programme-information/the-intern
This may be interesting just to see what crap the unemployed have to endure.
So they can't be doing a full day's work then as they'd no longer be eligible for JSA. And strictly they have broken their JSA agreement as it states you have to be available for work at all times and being an intern even for three days breaks that rule, which means that if DWP wants to they can sue them for benefit fraud. Unless Channel 4 have thought very carefully about this.
DeleteI tried to apply for an internship with a company because I thought it would be beneficial and this is what I was told by the JC - internships break the conditions of your Jobseekers agreement, so sorry, they're not for the unemployed.
Off The Topic:
ReplyDeleteFor nearly the last 5 years I have been in and out of work. When I have worked it has been interim work for some months at a time and when the interim has come to an end I have been able to sign on and claim JSA. These jobs are what I have found for myself, because I don't like being out of work and this was all I could find.
My last interim was for 10 months which ended 4 weeks ago and my wages has been paid to me in full. Prior to this I was unemployed for 6 months and able to receive JSA. Now I am back to signing on again and been told by my Advisor that I am only signing for my stamp, NO JSA - because my contributions have been used up.
@Kram
DeleteProviding you have no other sources of income and you do not have savings above £6000 you should be eligible for income based JSA instead of conributions based JSA.
Lord Freud's (is that how you spell it?) assertion that
ReplyDelete"there is no clear trend in the proportion of the caseload of jobseeker's allowance claimants which receives sanctions" is given some forensic and academic analysis. Not surprisingly it is found to be less than 100% correct.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/mar/29/figuring-out-jobseeker-sanctions
Iain Duncan Smith: I could live on £53 in benefits a week.
ReplyDeleteWork and pensions secretary says he would be able to survive on lowest rate of jobseeker's allowance given to adults under 25.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/01/iain-duncan-smith-live-benefits
Challenge him to do so here:
Deletehttps://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week
Sure you can Ian Duncan Smith but I doubt for more than a week. You are also cushioned by a comfortable home (or two?), savings and investments. I find that particular comment ignorant and silly if not hurtful towards the many that struggle.
ReplyDeleteI am sure too that that comment will come back to haunt you in time. Fingers crossed.
a little off topic [a4e related]- just came across this chap on youtube who had been referred to a4e after being signed off sickness benefit by atos. he discretely recorded his first meeting with A4e and posted it online. it's in two parts, first part is below-
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xa5k0kFbIiY
an interesting point-
1] the advisor repeatedly makes it clear that, 'you are with a4e for two years, whether you find a job or not.' when the chap follows up and asks what in-work support they offer, the advisor lets him know that they cant help with any workplace grievances such as discrimination or unfair dismissal, they can only 'signpost' him to the citizens advice bureau.
if this is the only in-work support a4e offer [basically telling their client that they can't help with anything and that they should just go to CAB] what exactly are they being paid for?
i realise this dilemma hardly ever comes up [what with only 3.5% of a4e clients finding work] but it would be interesting to see how much they are being paid for what is essentially fobbing clients off.
I'm not very impressed with this. You shouldn't be filming or recording without permission unless you want to expose something, and he's not exposing anything that we didn't know.
Deleteif everybody took that opinion, nothing would ever be exposed.
DeleteNot true. There was nothing here to expose, nothing that wasn't public. If A4e decided to sue him he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Deletewe obviously have very different opinions. with all the negative press A4e has recently garnered for it's treatment of the unemployed- from the unethical to the downright illegal- i cannot fault this man for recording his dealings with them. in fact, with the recent information that has come to light regarding sanction targets, i will certainly be recording every contact i have with my work programme provider [i have been referred for my first appointment next week]. it's just about covering your back.
ReplyDeletenonetheless, i respect you for publishing my rebuttal and keep up the good work with the blog.
By all means record it in writing - but if you want to film or record the sound, you need permission. And you certainly need permission to publish it on the internet. I worked in the sector (not for A4e)and would have expected my employers to have sued if he'd done it to me.
DeleteI have tape recorded every meeting I've had with my provider.
DeleteI do it because I don't want to be accused of saying something I haven't said, or being referred for a sanction for not complying with something I haven't actually been told to do.
I am someone on benefits, and it it automatically assumed that people on benefits lie. I am sick of it, so I tape the meetings and will continue to do so.
That's okay until you have to produce the recording, and then you might find yourself sanctioned for doing it.
DeleteI don't blame people in this situation. Personally, I have always advised writing notes of every meeting, reading them back to the "adviser" and, if possible, getting their signature on them. But I know that's not something everyone can do. Just be careful when you record secretly, and never publish the recording.
Historian your assertion that: "By all means record it in writing - but if you want to film or record the sound, you need permission. And you certainly need permission to publish it on the internet. I worked in the sector (not for A4e)and would have expected my employers to have sued if he'd done it to me". Is not correct. It is perfectly legal to make an overt or covert recording for one's own records. Indeed the guidance states that if the advisor knows that a recording is being made they have a duty to ensure privacy so that third party conversations are not inadvertently recorded. However publication of recordings (e.g. on U Tube) is a different matter and falls under copyright law. Posting such recordings without permission could lead to legal action.
DeleteAs an ex-adviser I would have expected you to know this!
I was never an adviser! Don't jump to conclusions. If you're right, I stand corrected. But it's the publication of the film or recording which sparked this conversation, and we agree that you shouldn't do that. As for the guidance you quote; suppose you record covertly and pick up third party conversations?
DeleteI know that TV and radio producers have wanted some "hidden camera" stuff on the WP but have shied away from it.
I apologise - My assumption was wrong.
DeleteYou ask "As for the guidance you quote; suppose you record covertly and pick up third party conversations?" I can see little coming of this scenario, as unless you publish, the inadvertently recorded conversation no one will know. Certainly the advisor can only be held responsible if they know (or should have known) that a recording was being made.
The two pieces of legislation that cover the recording of conversations are the Data Protection Act and the Regulation of Investigative Powers Act - The former covers the storing and processing of the information and makes allowances for a private individuals. The RIP act also makes provision for a private individual to record any/all conversations without seeking prior consent - However, any recording made without consent can not be produced as evidence unless specifically ordered by a judge (written transcripts can be used though).
DeleteThe W.P. provider can make it a condition of entry that recording devices should be turned off. Ignoring this would be trespass which is civil law and would garner yet more bad publicity if a provider brought a private prosecution.
If the provider wishes to conduct meetings in a public area, then by definition, there is no expectation of privacy - Indeed, a notepad and pen is all that is required to make records of inappropriate conversations overheard.
Most people don't want to record "inappropriate conversations", they just need a record of their own exchanges with the "adviser". As far as I'm concerned I will record every exchange as a means of protecting myself. If the WP provider wish to make it a condition of entry that I turn off my recording device I will refuse. If I am then ejected for "trespass!"so be it. It would be very amusing to defend a DNA sanction doubt when simultaneously being accused of trespass!
Delete