Saturday 3 August 2013

Round-up

I'm sure we were all looking forward to hearing Iain Duncan Smith questioned about his and his department's use of statistics on 4 September.  But according to a blog, this is not now going to happen.  The writer quotes Sheila Gilmore MP, a member of the Work and Pensions Select Committee as saying that the Department's Annual Report isn't ready, and since the main purpose of the meeting was to examine that, it's had to be postponed.  How fortunate for IDS.  As fortunate, perhaps, as the fact that they're still examining the quality of the sanctions data, so can't publish that either.  At what point do we conclude that facts are being deliberately suppressed?
One fact that hasn't been suppressed (it's been leaked) is an internal survey of civil servants working on Universal Credit.  The Guardian has the details.  Staff talk about terrible management, poor decision-making, no communication and dishonesty.  It's utterly damning.
Then there's ATOS.  It's been disclosed that the company has been paid £754 million for its sickness and disability testing since 2005.  £754m.  That's your money and my money.  The Independent reports that Lord Alton has got the National Audit Office to investigate the contracts, calling them "a licence to print money".
So-called zero hours contracts are not IDS's responsibility, but the consequences of them are.  Yet it's only the Lib Dems, including Nick Clegg and Vince Cable, who are expressing concern.  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has just upped its estimate of how many people are working on these terms to 250,000, but this is almost certainly too low.  Are people being forced to apply for, and take, these jobs under threat of sanctions?  
Finally, an unusual reference to A4e in a regional paper.  The company still occasionally gets PR pieces in local papers, but this one, in the Oxford Mail, won't please them.  It quotes a 27-year-old woman who says that the WP wasn't very effective for her, and her adviser had no time to spend with her.  She got help from the charity Crisis Skylight, whose CE says that the WP has been a huge disappointment, offering minimal support.  Strangely, the county's Tory MP, Sir Tony Baldry, doesn't completely disagree.  He acknowledges that the need in the area is for people with skills and qualifications, and they are not getting those.

38 comments:

  1. Statistics have been battered around so much that even the ring masters of this circus have lost track,but the show must go on! It seems that the unemployed are well down on the list of priorities, merely a by-product,that keeps popping up it's ugly head. I was recently asked by an Adviser "Why do you think that you are entitled to support? You should stand on your own and earn a living like the rest of us" Dumbfounded my reply was "What is your purpose? without Clients you would be redundant" End of meeting!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have read a lot of these local newspapers(are they owned by the same company?) touting the success of A4E,they in my opinion,seem like a PR stunt biased by A4E,all candy coated and pointing out A4E's success,but never their failures! Ironically this also seems to be the same Mantras IDS,Hoban and the rest of these wastrels,shocked? Par for the course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lot of the regional press is owned by a small number of companies, but the main reason for so many puff-pieces is that local and regional print media is really struggling - often staffed by interns and recent graduates. For the most part and out of necessity, they rely on ready-made stories and churnalism, so it's generally pretty easy for companies to place positive stories.

      Delete
    2. A4E recently (a couple of months ago, mentioned on this blog) advertised for a publicity officer or similar job title based in London to lobby companies, politcians etc and put out a positive view of the company. The language for the ad indiocated to me that they wanted someone to improve the media image of a company which really wasn't doing well at all.

      Since they are paying someone to do this, you can expect a fair bit of it. Also, as Badger says the local media is looking for stories so just about anything goes as long as you have a good angle. I do voluntary publicity work myself so I know how easy it is to get things into print.

      Delete
  3. Sick of the Work Programme3 August 2013 at 10:01

    A refreshing and indeed surprising change for a tory MP to acknowledge that the most realistic way back into work is for people who are long term unemployed to gain new skills and qualifications. I wonder if he is going to raise the issue with anyone at headquarters though? What he has acknowledged is what I have been saying about the Work Programme all along.

    Btw Anonymous (04:47), I would have been absolutely fuming if an adviser had said that to me. Well done for coming out with a (very accurate) retort!

    ReplyDelete
  4. So, there we have it. Failure, piled on top of failure, on top of failure! Just like a chocolate layer cake. But without the sweetness or enjoyment!

    If it's not the Work Prog, it's Universal Credit, if not this then it's Universal Jobmatch. Or instead it's Atos. Or it's dodgy stats. The oft used phrase 'the buck stops here' springs to mind. Only in the case of Smith, the buck stopped many years ago!

    How Smith can look himself in the mirror every morning and think things are going swimmingly is beyond me and no doubt all here as well!

    As well as zero hr. contracts, there should be an examination of so called 'self employment' jobs as well. It's said that such positions exist to offload the responsibility of paying the Nat Min Wage and Nat Insurance. We've always had things like Kleeneze, Betterware and Avon.

    However, we also have firms taking people on under 'self employment' terms when they are anything but.

    Take a friend of mine who was on the WP with A4e and found a job with a well known telecom / internet firm. He was very happy when he got the job with the help of A4e. When he said it was a self employed position, I told him to be vigilant.

    A few weeks later he quit. Why? Because the job quickly became impossible. He as berated for spending too long with customers, could not choose which costumers he could see first and had to spend a lot of time logging onto a company supplied tablet computer to communicate with his HQ long after he'd finished. Does not sound like true self employment to me!

    http://www.qualitysolicitors.com/media-centre/social-media/blog/2012/01/23/when-is-a-job-not-a-job-when-its-a-self-employment-opportunity/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I too have been offered "self employed opportunities" by a WP provider. Admittedly this was done somewhat shamefacedly and I instantly rejected the offer.
      I pointed out that, like many such opportunities, it did not get anywhere near meeting HMRC's basic requirements for being self employed, e.g. providing own tools, deciding own hours of work, having more than one customer etc. etc.*
      The A4e advisor was nonplussed at my criticism. The attitude was that the A4e self employed "expert" said it was self employed so that was all right.
      I guess A4e didn't really care since they would have been paid for the outcome but I wonder what penalties HMRC might have eventually imposed on the self employed person (and the quasi "employer") when the self employment was found to be nothing of the sort?
      HMRC actually provide detailed guidance on this:
      http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employment-status/index.htm

      *
      Employed - if you answer yes to most of the questions you are likely to be employed:
      • Do you have to do the work yourself? • Can someone tell you where to work, when to work, how to work or what to do? • Can someone move you from task to task? • Do you have to work a set number of hours? • Are you paid a regular wage or salary? • Can you get overtime pay or bonus payments? • Are you responsible for managing anyone else engaged by the person or company that you are working for?

      Delete
  5. Why am I not surprised that IDS will be be there?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ok I have left A4e, adviser told me I have applied for more jobs than anyone else on his caseload if not the entire office. So today I get 2 Appointments One for a Personal adviser Interview Group information Session should take about an hour, Not on my signing on day so they have to refund it Essentially its to talk to me about jobs, training and other ways to help me back to work..Ok Fine since I have left A4e. Now I got a second appointment for the 12th Essentially its pretty much the same.

    Now I get with the two appointments a Document Initial Assessment Record Ok fine 2nd page it is Basic Belief First question do you have issues with your housing/accomodation situation. yes, no and not sure..then it asks do you have a criminal conviction, Odd question to ask.. then do you have any health or disability difficulties, then a question about caring. last question Do you have problems with drugs or alcohol the rest of that page is about alcohol and drugs Then on the 2nd page something sneaky they have tick boxes Yes and no then half way down they change to No and yes.. Very Odd questions and very odd on how they set them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These were surely the sort of questions which should have been asked at the start of the WP, not after it. Yet we're told that often the providers don't even know that someone is homeless. As for the change in the order of Yes and No - let's hope the computer reflects that.

      Delete
    2. There's a problem (or a level of protection, depending on how one looks at it) relating to confidentiality and consent at each stage of the transfer from JCP - WP - JCP. Even if / when that issue is resolved, there's still the problem that WP providers are contractually obliged to provide a pretty limited set of information about returners, so they still may not so.

      Seems absurd that questions about substance use (and even things like basic literacy) are still being explored even when someone has been in 'the system' for a minimum of 27 months, but it's likely to continue to be a problem for the medium term at least - and that's putting to one side the many disincentives relating to disclosure, which is a huge problem in its own right.

      Delete
    3. I do believe that the problem is the last 2 years have been at the expense of the Unemployed,not the providers...After 2 years on this programme (Which I have paid for over the last 30 years) it delivers nothing,yet the Providers have secured their lifestyles and profits,while snivelling that they need more money,Obscene!

      Delete
  7. It worried me (going to scan it in), because people generally scan through and its easy to just tick boxes down in the same line, If it a change then they may tick things they don't want too Not saying the DWP/Jobcentre would deliberately do it like that.

    The work programme failed me again, 3rd time they failed, now this the pushing harder it feels like being bullied in school again, THEY failed me I didn't fail them, yet they blame ME for their lack of action an effort. I feel upset and guilty I am 40 years old and I feel like I am at school and been bullied again.

    How is this going to help me get a job? Am close to my breaking point. I do everything right I follow the rules to the letter, yet its never enough for them

    ReplyDelete
  8. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?399028-Work-programme....doesnt!!&p=4307281&posted=1#post4307281

    Take a look, some interesting stuff from someone who clearly was on the inside of a work programm office

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've posted this against my better judgement. The standard of English of the person giving all this information is so poor that s/he must have been at a low level in whatever organisation it was; or has gleaned the information from someone else. I find that stuff about agencies quite hard to believe. I'm not saying it's not true, just that I'd like some evidence.

      Delete
    2. My instinct is that one or more of the following applies to that poster - they have an axe to grind and are making (some) stuff up; they're confabulating (or as historian suggests passing on misunderstood information); they are / were extremely junior and don't fully understand how the WP works, which is not completely implausible.

      In short, the bits that appear to be true aren't news, and the bits that appear to be news don't appear to be true.

      Delete
  9. I've been on the work programme for six months.

    I now only see an adviser every six weeks. Does this I have been parked?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes it looks that way, I recieved the same treatment,found my own job,they found out and then were all over me like a rash......go figure.

      Delete
    2. The One True Elg6 August 2013 at 18:17

      Hard to tell if it's parking or whether the staff simply have so many people to deal with that's as often as they can see you.

      Either way it doesn't make for a great service.

      Delete
    3. My take is that it depends on what else you're doing - e.g. are you involved in some other ETE provision elsewhere, or are you a highly motivated, highly skilled jobseeker for whom the WP is likely to be more or less useless? If either of those, or something similar, apply, then it makes sense to leave you to it.

      If neither does, then yes, you may have been parked - although that does also mean fewer opportunities to be sanctioned. If you're interested in the minimum service offer from your provider, they can all be found here - although most are extremely vague:

      https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/185720/provider-minimum-service-delivery.pdf

      Delete
    4. Anon 6 Aug 2013 09:17

      I think The One True Elg has it right. The advisers have masses of clients each.

      Very hard if not impossible offer more than just the basics of seeing someone for 10 minutes or so and not seeing them again, sometimes for MONTHS! I know, it has happened to me!

      As such, even the pretence of a personalised and tailored service goes right out of the window for the majority of clients.

      Delete
  10. I think that for EVERY ATOS medical that goes to appeal (where the appeal is upheld) ATOS should HAVE to refund their fee. Maybe that way a) they would take FAR greater care b) they might feel more inclined to give a fair & honest assessment AND c)They might be less likely to deliberately try to get people off benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Historian,you have always been a post of light,at my worst moments you have been an adversary,do I always agree with your retort? No! but saying that you are fair(I do not agree,but fair)Please keep this open and fair forum open,as I have seen so many closed and it scares the pants off me!....Scared Sh1tless in Wales

    ReplyDelete
  12. Genuine training is what we need! And qualifications for the jobs we used to do that now require :- certificates and updated skills.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Went to the Group Information session for the work programme 2 the revenge just when you thought it was safe to go back into the job market.., several things came to ligh she stressed it was not there to trick you into getting sanctions said it 3 times.

    For the first month I have to go there 2 or 3 times a week, then once a week afterwards there will be a new action plan per week with 1-3 mandatory things some will be a rolling thing some will be a one use event

    They also said Sector based academies, where you will be sent for 6-8 weeks and get a qualification this could be anywhere within merseyside. The staff will have 48 hours notice that the scheme is up then they will input peoples names and ni numbers into the system and its whoever types the fastest gets the place.

    Then what was said that signing will be done electronically via the universal credit/universal jobsmatch site Does this mean you have to sign in to UJM to sign on what about security.. They did say that there MAY be funding for other training. When you get sent there you get a form that is NOT mandatory to fill in. Now I dont know how accurate what that woman told me and since Universal credit is red/amber rated plus other problems with it. So we shall see what happens next.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Guess it depends where you are then, as I have been told who I will be seeing at the JC when I sign and that all they will do is reconsider the areas I am applying for jobs in (obviously not suitable since I haven't found one).

      I'm not off the WP for another couple of weeks though, so time for it all to change, but I'd guess my JC are already doing this with the first people off the WP.

      Delete
  14. I was on the WP for exactly three days before I was offered a full time, well paid job in the field that I trained in at University [web content].

    Great news, you would think, except that in my first meeting with A4E I was told to delete my degree and previous experience from my CV so as not to discourage employers in more menial industries from taking me on.

    I refused. Following a heated discussion with my adviser I received a letter in the post a few days later letting me know a sanction doubt had been raised. Apparently I hadn't been co-operating. The letter was obviously a template but the insinuation was that I had been deliberately disruptive, treated the whole thing as a joke and wasn't doing enough to seek work.

    Of course, by this point I could care less. I tore up the letter and forgot about it. A full month passed until last week at work I got no less than three phone calls a day from the WP office demanding to know where I had started work and contact numbers for my HR dept etc. If I didn't tell them this information, I was warned, I would be 'in breach of contract' whatever that means.

    Like most people I imagine, I only came across the blog after being referred to the WP so I don't really know enough to know if it's worth taking them seriously. I'm 99% sure it's all bluster but any advice would be very much appreciated.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If they can discover where you work they can claim a job outcome. I know that sounds absurd, but it's always been the position with these schemes. I really don't know what contract you could possibly be in breach of by not telling them.
      Your experience, especially at the start, is shared by many. The idea that you should dumb down your CV is common, but stupid. It leaves gaps - how do you explain those years when you were studying? And what do you put on an application form?
      So glad things have worked out for you.

      Delete
    2. thank you for the heads up and for your kind words. it's very much appreciated.

      to be perfectly frank, if these incessant phone calls are simply so they can claim money from one hour of treating me like a naughty child and undermining my self esteem [I consider myself a confident person but six months on the rock and roll will knock anyone's confidence]... then they won't get anything from me.

      I figured the 'breach of contract' nonsense was just that but wanted to be sure. if reading this blog and others has taught me anything it's that WP providers are litigious and I didn't want to do anything that could damage my career.

      Thanks again.

      Delete
    3. This may sound a bit ignorant,but if you are in "Breach of contract" should they not also be held in breach of contract for failing to actually deliver on their contracts,and also failure to deliver to the individual?

      Delete
    4. Yes, they're just after the money as far as the phone calls go, and the 'breach of contract' bit is absurd - their contract is with DWP, not the individual recipient of their services.

      However, just a suggestion re the 'compliance doubt' - if a decision maker decides to apply a sanction, it might still apply should you be unfortunate enough to lose your job within 12 months, so if anything comes through from DWP / JCP, it'd be best to deal with it.

      Good luck with the new job.

      Delete
    5. They are trying it on. At no point did you have any form of contract with the provider. You were merely the "goods" (or "stock" in the words of Lord Freud) in a contract between the DWP and the provider.
      Have some fun with them. Make their lives as miserable as they make some others'.
      Just don't tell them where you're working.
      If they get too pushy you could always threaten them with a complaint (to the police) of harassment. The complaint would be aginst the named individual as well as the company,
      Enjoy your new job.

      Delete
    6. I had arecent contact regarding this and when asked about there liability the response was we make the rules.

      Delete
    7. (Nothing seems to have improved since my time with a4e three years ago, unfortunately.)

      t would have thought you weren't in breach of contract assuming you hadn't signed a written contract promising to inform them of a new job.

      Rather silly though of the DWP but then they probably assume people are like sheep and will fall in line and don't question.

      I wonder if you/one couldn't take legal action against them for harassment.

      Well done on the new job!

      Delete
    8. Sick of the Work Programme9 August 2013 at 13:46

      Well done for getting a job. It's very worrying that if you hadn't got a job you could have been left with no money due to supposedly not complying with their poor advice, though. As for breach of contract- well, they're bluffing. You do not have to tell them where you're working. If I were you I would keep my phone switched off during the day when you're at work (or at least keep the ring tone switched off). In any case I'm fairly sure that, by phoning you several times a day, the Work Programme provider could be in breach of some harassment law.

      Delete
    9. Also constant 'phone calls at work hardly is acceptable and they are jeopardising your job.

      Also never ever give a4e and the like your mobile number.

      Delete
  15. For what it is worth, it is all bluster from A4E as a Work Programme Provider cannot force you to tell them where you are working.

    On the flip side, should the job not last two years and you go back to A4E via the Work Programme with an updated CV of where you are now working, A4E will no doubt try to claim the Job Entry in the future (providing you have signed a sharing of information form). I am an Employment Advisor and your advisor should have gone down the standard route of creating different variants of your CV.

    Your advisor has generated an Entitlement Doubt which is unlikely to become a sanction due to you starting work. I really do wish you the best of luck with the job.

    ReplyDelete
  16. many thanks to all of you- just to be clear, this wasn't a case of 3 calls in one day- it was 3 calls a day for an entire week.

    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".