We were told that more Work Programme performance data would be published this month. I would be very surprised if that happens. It would be only four more months after the last lot, and one cannot imagine that there's been such a dramatic improvement that the government will be keen to publish. Without that improvement, A4e and the other providers will be in real difficulties. The attachment fees were just about keeping them ticking over, and we know that A4e were in trouble a year ago. So, will we soon hear about contracts being ended?
While we wait and wonder, you might care to read a couple of DWP documents. There's an impact assessment justifying the legislation to ensure that they don't have to pay back the £130m wrongly taken from people who were sanctioned while the compulsory work schemes were illegal. Then you could look at a number of documents which tell "the DWP reform story", downloadable from their website. They call it a "communications toolkit".
Last week we were told that under Universal Credit, enquiries would have to be made via an 0845 phone number - in other words, expensively. In fact, this was raised a year ago by the Mirror. Last November the DWP confirmed this but said that "free claimant access phones" would be available in "a large number" of Jobcentres. So that's all right, then.
One other item: there's an article about the Trussell Trust and food banks on the Independent's website. What caught my attention was a comment by someone calling himself Marchie1053 - scroll down and find it. He draws attention to the close links between the Trussell Trust and the Conservative party. Interesting.
Here is some fighting talk from Liam Byrne about IDS’ new, retroactive legislation:
ReplyDeletehttp://labourlist.org/2013/03/our-young-people-need-a-real-chance-to-work-in-a-real-job-paying-a-real-wage/
I wonder whether the Govt has conceded the allegedly demanded amendments?
I wonder if the government plans to retroactively change the law to collect money that hasn't been paid in tax and has been avoided on technicalities - one law for the rich and another for the poor.
ReplyDeleteResults? What strikes me with most Providers and Subs is that this Programme was set up to help the unemployed(?) Did anybody inform them? On the Indus Delta website there is a position advertised for an "Employer Engagement Professional" read this,it sounds like what they really want is a Time Share sales person.
ReplyDeleteHi mkmky. You say "what they really want is a Time Share sales person." This is true! It seems that the role of such a person is to approach local employers with a view to selling the "services" of the pimp. The idea being to get access to possible vacancies on an exclusive, or near exclusive basis. Two points occur to me:
Delete1. This is direct competition for local employment agencies. Furthermore it is unfair competition because the employer does not have to pay the pimp a finder's fee as he would an agency. Indeed the opposite may be true with employers getting a nice little back hander from the pimp! I would be annoyed if I ran an employment agency and had to face direct competition from an organisation that was directly funded by taxpayers' money!
2. At least this is an attempt by the pimps to address the real problem - the lack of proper jobs - rather than just blaming the unemployed for their plight. I do feel that the WP and other programmes have such a bad reputation that only the very lowest of the low type jobs will find their way onto the pimps' books. No responsible employer would want their name tarnished with association with the likes of A4e.
I almost didn't publish this. Please avoid words like "pimps", however much you feel it fits.
DeleteIt strikes me that the only way the Work Programme can ever "work" is with this direct engagement with employers to give first chance of interviews to people on the programme. That has happened as far back as New Deal, and it gives a chance to people who are otherwise automatically excluded. There are, as you say, downsides to this.
I bow to your sensibilities Historian. However well the shoe fits I will try to find alternative expressions.
Delete"Providers" sounds so limp since no one seems able to tell me what it is they "provide".
I'm just old fashioned, I guess, call a spade a spade and can't get the hang of all this "Newspeak".
Don't be disingenuous. Look up the definition of pimp.
DeleteDisingenuous - Moi?!
DeleteThe next set of performance data is due out in late May
ReplyDeleteA4E Southport now require fuel receipts to recompense attendees with travel expenses. They claim it is for VAT. Therefore if I hand in a full tank's receipt for £60, they could have £10 returned by the the tax man, in return for reimbursing me with £5 travelling expenses. Is this legal? They did not purchase the fuel. Is it a practice only A4E at Southport follows? Or it a nationwide scam?
ReplyDeleteI doubt that it's a scam. I don't even think it has anything to do with VAT (though I'm open to correction). They need proof that you bought fuel. You, presumably, sign for the £5 they reimburse you.
DeleteSurely they must realise that you don't buy fuel every time you travel? The office I am forced to attend is 4 miles away, I certainly don't refuel my car every time I want to do a round trip of 8 miles!
DeleteIt is common practice in most commercial organisations for anybody claiming business mileage expenses to have to provide a receipt for fuel purchased that month regardless of the amount they are claiming. Nothing at all dodgy there.
DeleteI watched some of the debate about the new, retroactive, Jobseekers’ legislation. I noted that IDS blames the DWP’s legal team for the fiasco. DWP Legal clearly need to undertake hideously expensive courses in casting runes, reading tealeaves and tarot, polishing cystal balls etc. All paid for by the taxpayer, of course…..
ReplyDeleteLeaving aside IDS and his legendary stupidity, I was very pleased to see loads of MPs complaining about the draconian new sanctions regime. Apparently, it will cost about £24 million to refund Benefits claimants who have simply been sanctioned unfairly and wrongly in circs that having nothing to do with the recent Court of Appeal ruling. Refunding the £24 million should knock some common-sense into the DWP and the Work Programme providers alike and should result in the Provider Guidance documents being watered down intelligently, I hope:
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/what-we-buy/welfare-to-work-services/provider-guidance/work-programme-provider.shtml
"What caught my attention was a comment by someone calling himself Marchie1053 - scroll down and find it".
ReplyDeleteActually Marchie1053 was reposting information I (12758) had given him in Jan. I in turn had got it from somewhere else, almost certainly either 'The Void' or 'Ipswich Unemployed Action.' Both are good sources so this gives me an opportunity to publish them more widely.
http://intensiveactivity.wordpress.com/
http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/