Monday 31 October 2011

Transparency

Paul Maynard, MP for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, blogs that he is encouraged by his "discussion with a local representative from A4E here in Blackpool, who are running the Government’s Work Programme scheme here in the North West. Whilst I often here (sic) that there are no jobs out there, it was refreshing to hear a slightly more positive point of view. No-one pretends that we are in the midst of economic boom, but the patient accumulation of business contacts is ensuring that A4E is becoming a one-stop shop for many employers with vacancies to fill." He goes as far as telling people looking for work who are not on the Work Programme that they should give A4e a call. Well, let's hope he's right.

But we won't know how successful A4e and the other providers are until next March. That secrecy is understandable up to a point. Even if someone got a job on the very first day of the Work Programme they won't yet have been in the job for 6 months. And the DWP is going to use the figures to compare the providers in a region and reduce the number of clients to an obviously failing provider, so a running commentary on the figures wouldn't be helpful. But it means that we have no idea whether the hype matches the reality. And lack of transparency is one of the themes of an article on the Morning Star website by Solomon Hughes. In the name of "opening up public services", he says, Cameron is handing over the funding of public services to private investors. Hughes describes how A4e has been hired to design the contracts for schemes funded by social impact bonds, something we highlighted recently. While this hasn't been a secret, it's not something that the average person would think sensible. The article is well worth reading.

6 comments:

  1. A comment from Kev B which I've edited slightly just to remove the name of the company because individuals could be identified.

    "I had an interesting meeting with contractors (redacted) down here on the south coast. I hadn't had any contact with them since August, the reason being they were overloaded with more difficult cases so I was left to my own devices. I had a call last week and was invited to attend a meeting today. The meeting was headed by a chap and his female colleague from the office in London. He had created a "unique" solution to the job hunting initiative which was deemed successful and was tasked with expanding it outside of London. The unique formula was the identification of 25 businesses that resemble your skill set which you would individually knock on the door, insist on speaking to management and ask for employment. This is unique skill is known as the speculative approach to job seeking. A bold approach fraught with potential knock backs. Now the success aspect of this is that 100 jobs had been found in London in the space of 10 months or so. Hardly what I would call a glowing success. My concern is the DWP insist, even when individuals are on the Back to Work programme, apply for at least 3 advertised roles.

    Not being the pessimist, I suspect this could work to a degree in London give the built up nature of the City and the very effective transport system. Out in the sticks these goals can really present problems, especially from a transportation perspective. When a couple of the guys at the meeting mentioned they only had public transport to depend upon, which in the sticks is certainly not a door to door solution, they were advised to ask friends and family to drive them around! Irrespective of the employment status of those friends and family. Crazy.

    I have attempted this speculative approach in the not too distant past and trust me, the last thing you want to hear following rejections after in excess of 500 job applications, agism, ignorance and low self esteem is to be told to shove off because of the adoption on an unorthodox approach to job seeking. The companies don't like it. I certainly won't like it.

    The solution is a booming and positive employment market which, in the current climate, is not going to raise its head anytime soon."

    I love the idea of insisting on speaking to the management. But I don't think that applying for 3 advertised vacancies is too onerous. it just means that you might end up applying for jobs you have no chance of getting. It's true that the people making the rules don't understand the problems of lack of transport, though.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Out in the sticks these goals can really present problems, especially from a transportation perspective. When a couple of the guys at the meeting mentioned they only had public transport to depend upon, which in the sticks is certainly not a door to door solution, they were advised to ask friends and family to drive them around! Irrespective of the employment status of those friends and family."

    I've had people think I can do this, presumably the thinking is that the car-owning friend or family member will then progress to paid chauffeur when you get that job.... Or could it be they didn't think?

    I have also just been told by a couple of big name companies that I live too far away from their stores (in the two nearest towns to me) to apply for jobs there. Perhaps I should insist on speaking to the management.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Polly, you can see the employers' point. If you're dependent on one bus to get you into work in the morning, they could be nervous about whether you would always make it. And if it's shift work, forget it. On the wider point, it is very difficult for someone who has always had the use of a car to imagine life without one.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Historian - that'd be fair enough if they'd asked about driving (I admit I didn't make that clear), but the online application forms ask for your postcode before they let you do anything else and at just over 5 miles it's apparently too far even if I was driving. In fact, plenty of people from where I live do work in these towns and get there by public transport and these towns are pretty well my only hope of getting a job. It's a shame that the two largest employers don't want people from rural areas. Probably discriminatory too, but as you said, they can play the distance card.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Have you got evidence in writing that they rule you out on grounds of distance? That would be pretty damning.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Polly, I would write to the head office of that company and ask why they have this policy. Then go to your local paper and your MP with the evidence.

    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".