Thank you all for your support and contributions, however, due to announcement of the Work Programme this site is no longer active.
You may however continue to browse old content.

Jobseekers’ Work Experience: a bad deal

Posted on April 21st, 2010.

Post Categories: DWPFlexible New DealNew DealWelfare Reformunemployment
Tags: , , , ,

Flexible New Deal scandal reports on how jobseekers on the Flexible New Deal are getting fucked over for doing more hours of work per week than on New Deal and getting between 10p more and £3 less than 12 years ago at the beginning of New Deal.

If I am correct the £15 bonus has been around since start of New Deal (say 1998)…

Age
Then” (New Deal in 1998)
(with £15 bonus)
Now” (Flexible New Deal in 2010)
Difference
18 – 24
£39.85
£54.85
£51.85
-£3
25+
£50.35
£65.35
£65.45
10p

Looking at the figures… The younger age payments are better off 12 years ago on New Deal!

In 1999 when National Minimum Wage came into effect the 22+ rate was £3.60 as of October this year it will be £5.93

1999/1998: 30 hours @ £3.60 = £108 | £65.35
> Oct 2010: 30 hours @ £5.93 = £177 | £65.45

An increase of £69 (63%) via National Minimum Wage increases in this period or just 10p via jobseeker “work experience” benefit.

Lets not upset the under 25s as they are actually £3 worse off than 12 years ago while doing an extra days work.

So pre-workfare jobseekers are generally moaning about doing at least 4 weeks of fulltime work placement on Flexible New Deal without an extra £15 per week… and for below National Minimum Wage… but actually don’t they have a point?

For example, National Minimum Wage has increased around 63% over the last 12 years – yet even though doing an extra days work a week the older age range of jobseekers (25+) are only 10p better off than doing a days less work a week 12 years ago.

For the younger age range of jobseekers (18 > 24) are actually £3 worse off than on New Deal 12 years ago.

I do not need to explain over the last 12 years how much the cost of living has increased… food, housing, travel costs (these are reimbursed but weekly … not paid upfront) etc.

Perhaps there is a case against the withdrawal of the £15 additional allowance. Workfare is a longer period for the same money with the same effect. I welcome your comments!!

Make a Comment

10 Responses to “Jobseekers’ Work Experience: a bad deal

  1. 1
    ken says:

    new deal has always been the same,some work more hours then others’i found i was doing more hours then i should have been thanks to the “provider” and the shop manager colluding,if i remember back it was supposed to be 10am to 4pm i was in at 9 some started later.

    that new deal was (is) bloody useless,they wont have a bad word said against it.you cannot substitute a proper job and a living wage and expect that to work.the problem is they view people as lazy (that will never change) blaming the individual is by far the easiest option.
    poor pay/poor prospects/a care less attitude,money counts priority before well being of the workforce leads to disaster.

  2. 2
    michael says:

    When I got my 6-month work placement on New Deal in early 1999 I was paid more than minimum wage plus a shift allowance and overtime. This was for a big public organisation.

  3. 3
    lisa says:

    was referred for 13 weeks work experience ( i asked to go on this to get up to date experience) been told i have to sign on as normal and go to a centre for 4 hours every week for dedicated job search. I didn’t think i had to do both. ( Place i am working is not too impressed with this) I take a list with me everytime i sign on to prove i have been applying for jobs. Do i have to do both.

    • 4
      Flexible New Deal says:

      Is this New Deal?

      If so you are not required to sign on every 2 weeks – you would be signed on in your absence.

      • 5
        lisa says:

        my advisor at first thought i didn’t have to sign on, she made a call and was told because new deal was changing i had to sign on, on monday 26th april when i should have started work experience it fell through, i got another placement today and was told have to sign on and do dedicated 4 hour job search at a centre. do i need to do this 4 hour search as i have own computer and prove everytime i sign on that i have applied for jobs., also would be better for me if i could do work experience that day.

  4. 6
    lisa says:

    can anyone answer my question am i on new deal or flexible new deal. i was referred under the new deal and if it is fnd can i go for a 4 week work trial when i have finished :-?

  5. 7
    Funny A4e Photos says:

    Lisa: How many hours a week is your placement?
    I can appreciate you wanting to get up-to-date work experience but be careful they are not taking advantage of you

    • 8
      lisa says:

      if i have to do 4 hours dedicated job search my hours will be 27 3/4 per week. Its the fact that the placement that fell through yesterday i didn’t have to do it. I get a new placement today and i have to do it. Thanks for replying.

  6. 9
    John Taylor says:

    My provider thinks I should do a work placement but I said I’d rather carry on with normal job search for now. They said they’re going to have to telephone the job centre.

    Will I be signed off or sanctioned?. If I’m signed off can I re-claim?.

  7. 10
    lisa says:

    everything sorted out today, my new deal lone parent advisors were great, better than job advisor.
    :wink:


    Trackbacks:

Leave a Reply

Please Note: We are an independent website NOT an official Government website or a business or affiliate operating on behalf of. Please consider this before posting any personal information or if for whatever reason thinking this is connected to Jobcentre Plus. (Always look for .gov.uk at the end of the URL which specifys a Government website)

Please Note: This post is over 3 months old. You may want to check future posts in this blog to see if there is new information relevant to your comment.

By submitting a comment here you grant this site a perpetual license to reproduce your comment(s) and name/web site in attribution. Only comment if you agree with the below rules.

(1) All comments on Flexible New Deal Scandal are moderated for purposes of filtering out SPAM
(2) I reserve the right not to publish any comment for any reason such as being racist or offensive
(3) I aim to accept comments within 3 hours (but could be up to 24 hours)
(4) I will post any comments not in favour of any article for balance of discussion
(5) I do not edit comments so if the comment is partially offensive it is unlikely to be approved at all
(6) I reserve the right to append line breaks to comments so they are easier to read or remove any link
Thank you for your attribution to Flexible New Deal Scandal!

Topics

Archives

Flexible New Deal

Some portions copyright © 2009, New Deal Scandal and the rest are copyright © 2010, Flexible New Deal Scandal. RSS Feeds are for personal use only.

Do not copy articles or comments without permission!

Feel free to link to blog posts. If you link to an article and we receive a trackback we will accept it (unless the article is automated spam). Some posts and comments are imported from the old New Deal Scandal website after it closed.

Feel free to get in touch: flexiblenewdeal [at] live [dot] co [dot] uk and tell us about your experiences of Flexible New Deal!

It is official! There are 10,706,647 irresponsible people with the right to vote in this country.
  • Blog Statistics

    ==Unique Visitors==

    Previous Blog: 40,104
    (since 1st Nov 2009)
    Total Visitors: 159121

    Site is no longer maintained.

  • RSS

    Feeds are no longer available.
    Website has reached End of Life.

    Job Search

    What Job?
    job position title, keywords or company name
    Where
    city or town

    Flexible New Deal Scandal
    Not giving up in protecting YOU the unemployed from workfare ("Work for Your Benefit"), corruption, poverty and those Con-servative bastards!