Coalition Programme for Government
Post Categories: uk government
Why have they just merged a couple of party manifestos? I want more information on the specific issues, not a few bullet points! We need a protest and a new election… don’t want these *****s in charge for next 5 years!
Snippets
19. JOBS AND WELFARE
The Government believes that we need to encourage responsibility and fairness in the welfare system. That means providing help for those who cannot work, training and targeted support for those looking for work, but sanctions for those who turn down reasonable offers of work or training.
There has always been sanctions for turning down offers of work or training since the Jobseekers Act 1995 came into power.
We will end all existing welfare to work programmes and create a single welfare to work programme to help all unemployed people get back into work.
Interesting. No target set for when they will end it all – they have 5 years remember. They want to allow the Work for Your Benefit pilot to commence. Not sure how this will fit in with their plans, they probably not worked it out yet. The “Work Programme” is a single programme support by a few other programmes such as Work for Yourself etc. (if I recall correctly). So not exact a single programme solution even if they plan to funnel everyone through the same welfare programme initially and sign-post people.
We will ensure that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants facing the most significant barriers to work are referred to the new welfare to work programme immediately, not after 12 months as is currently the case. We will ensure that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants aged under 25 are referred to the programme after a maximum of six months.
Is it 6 months or immediately? Highlight the words “most significant barriers”…. what are these? This is nonsense, its unlikely that at the NJI (New Jobseeker Interview) that you will be directed straight to the Work Programme. Also under 25s on Flexible New Deal are already fast tracked at 6 months. No mentions of the programme’s name.
We will realign contracts with welfare to work service providers to reflect more closely the results they achieve in getting people back into work.
Realign? I assume they mean a like-for-like contract with a few added bonuses. The cost of the Work Programme isn’t going to be much cheaper than Flexible New Deal anyway.
We will reform the funding mechanism used by government to finance welfare to work programmes to reflect the fact that initial investment delivers later savings through lower benefit expenditure, including creating an integrated work programme with outcome funding based upon the DEL/AME switch.
I was under the impression that it would be a single welfare-2-work programme. Labour had already been doing this – Flexible New Deal service fee payments are top heavy (which sticks the scrapping of the scheme to a disadvantage, as the scheme works out cheaper towards the end of the contract, resulting in providers gaining via the short term) and also, (not related, much…) sanctions limit the amount paid out, investment has been made in developing the legislation and staff handling the cases.
We will ensure that receipt of benefits for those able to work is conditional on their willingness to work
Interesting. At current, people have to meet conditions to claim Jobseekers Allowance including Actively Seeking Employment (ASE) or (for comparison to this idea) the willingness to seek work. If benefits are going to be directly linked to the “willingness to work” this must mean a test of such, known here as workfare, is required.
We support the National Minimum Wage because of the protection it gives low income workers and the incentives to work it provides.
The National Minimum Wage is a good concept but heavily flawed. It is one of Labour’s best ideas and also one of their worst implemented ideas. It has acted as a marker of how low to pay staff. Over one and a half million people are paid below this amount – enforcement is very limited. There also is no variables to the calculation (except from age) thus people in London are the same amount as someone working in a village. People with specific legal requirements for a job (i.e. SIA licence, driving licence for driving jobs) aren’t required to be paid more than an unskilled worker. You must be pissed off to undergo such training etc. at hundreds of pounds just to perhaps be paid the same as someone stacking shelves in a supermarket.
We will re-assess all current claimants of Incapacity Benefit for their readiness to work. Those assessed as fully capable for work will be moved onto Jobseeker’s Allowance.
Labour had already began forcing disability benefit claimants on to the cheaper JSA benefit. I also though Incapacity Benefit has been pulled and renamed ESA? Or perhaps that only for new claims.
We will support would-be entrepreneurs through a new programme – Work for Yourself – which will give the unemployed access to business mentors and start-up loans.
Positive point! Many unemployed people want to be pro-active… if you cant get a job, why not try working for yourself? Problem is this is Princes Trust territory. Business mentors are great. Start-up loans are a joke though… you are on benefits, even with a sound good-projections business plan you will not be loaned much money, even if at high rates and for equity too.
We will draw on a range of Service Academies to offer pre-employment training and work placements for unemployed people.
Service academies? Delegate people out to private businesses? Pre-employment training generally doesnt work… its a myth.
We will develop local Work Clubs – places where unemployed people can gather to exchange skills, find opportunities, make contacts and provide mutual support.
Sounds good, optional… but will it be? Or sanctions for not attending job search (when you can do it at home)?
We will investigate how to simplify the benefit system in order to improve incentives to work.
A tip for the future… investigate issues prior to getting into power.
34 Responses to “Coalition Programme for Government”
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 2 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 SPAMThank you for your attribution to Flexible New Deal Scandal!
(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
See it here…
http://programmeforgovernment.hmg.gov.uk/files/2010/05/coalition-programme.pdf
Things should be become clearer in the coming and months. But I suspect the Gold Rush days for providers are well and truly over.
Let’s hope so, the current system is literally a shambles. One of my friends remains cheerfully optimistic about it, wish I felt the same. I just have a feeling that things may get worse, but I would love to be proved wrong.
We shall see….
i think it is after being referred to working links after 13 weeks on jsa i was told there is no 13 training course because it is “winding down” and that after 13 weeks with an advisor i would be referred back to the job center basically there is no more money in the pot to pay claimants the extra £30 and pay training providers it seems…..
this all sounds very jumbled and unclear,while its acknowledged that there are barriers to work,anyone with an ongoing health problem is going to find it a major barrier,i have sat in job centre interviews where the tendency is to play down any issues’ including not stating those until after the job has started being one of the “ideas’” put forward,indeed if a health problem isn’t disclosed at the job interview this can have the immediate affect of don’t bother starting.
recessing claimants on incapacity benefit,these will no doubt have to sit through the humiliation of the atos ordeal,no doubt leaving those with mental health problems’ again having a raw deal,being shoved on jobseekers allowance and a benefit cut and a merry go round of appeals and then face what we all have with with the job centres attitude is totally unacceptable,observing their behavior they are lucky not to be facing charges of human rights abuse,defamation of character,incitement,behavior that is likely to cause a breach of the peace,accusation without proof/reason,and provocation without cause or reason.
trying to umbrella these back to work ideals is little more then a cost saving exercise but at the same time they are claiming individual help which will add to the costs’,this will has been seen as segregation into different categories with those seen as ready given the most attention leaving others on the back burner in the back room,the reality is little will change i hope i am wrong but given the size of departments these often show little inclination to adapt as once it was put its only a job to them.
the minimum wage is not a living wage its a level that suits the job centre as it bullies people into applying for these vacancies’,low pay breeds a gang master culture which the bosses such as digby jones enjoy with legality who are first to scream the costs to business in a recession and attempt to block pence rises’ through bluster,workfare will continue this trend of sub class disgruntled employees’ with no rights or comeback bulling at a different level.
the times ahead are to be watched and scrutinised with interest.
Hi FND I read the article in the dailymail and here are the points it highlighted
<B"Benefits only for those who are willing to work
All current claimants of Incapacity Benefit to be reassessed
Benefit system to be simplified
All existing welfare to work programmes scrapped
'Work Clubs' and 'Service Academies' set up to help people back to work
Those claiming Jobseeker's Allowance to be referred to welfare to work programme immediately – not after 12 months
"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279880/Coalition-target-benefits-cheats-bad-teachers-health–safety-killjoys.html#ixzz0oUhqeSSU
All the providers will do is end up running the other schemes they want to introduce, like these ‘work clubs’.
Watch the news today.
I’ve also been trying to get some concrete details, apparently the real stuff is coming out on Thursday.
The rhetoric is typical and insidious. We are in for a shit time and it’s workfare all the way.
IDS maintains that people on benefits have a relatively easy time of it. He believes that the sanction rules are not properly applied at least. I can tell him that is bollocks. The ruels were massively tightened under Labour to the point where people are guilty until proven innocent, and sanctions are applied (i talk from experience after being sanctioned because the job i applied for I didn’t speak to the advertised point of contact – the shop manager who was not available anytime I rang. Even the shop agreed it was stupid and were actually helpful in speaking to the dwp about this. I could go on.)
If that slapheaded prick thinks life on the dole is easy peasy sit and watch daytime tv he’s a fuckwit.
IBS (thats IDS) apparently had been working several years on a “blueprint” for welfare – has obviously missed out all the changes in that time.
This isn’t due to complete stupidity however just a common assumption that Labour werent using their sanction concept effectively and how Con-servatives can do better. Under Labour, in most (not all) BDC’s sanctions are automatically awarded – this is corruption – regardless of the lack of legislation/policy to enforce it. Some sanctions are indeed clean cut and simple. Others require a Decision Maker to actually read, rather than just OK-ing everything.
Many people who appealed sanction have noticed that either the DWP steps down after
reviewingor should I say actually reading the cases or compromising to a reduction in sanction period. After all its all down to targets and if the targets aren’t met the staff lose their jobs, and in all honesty, for the majority, I don’t see their alternative career prospects as too bright i.e. alternatively its the dole. What side of the table do you want to be on? Corruption without accountability (with moderate job security) or unemployed and poor with a corrupt society trying to kill you off every few seconds? I would like to answer with a third option but for a sake of having a life, and if you have children, and a wife/husband etc. then you just have to put up with the corruption and just blame it on the overall system.The concept created 14 years ago is great. I feel Social Security must always exist but it is fair that people should be given a chance to seek employment and those who dont should be actively excluded.
I hate sanctions and think they are unlawful ( http://www.unlawfulsanctions.org.uk ) but I feel that terminating entitlement (in this case of sanctions not terminating but sanctioning) for refusing jobs is a fair one – I go as far as thinking that JSA level should be raised and the generation problems of passive receivers should be fully eliminated (not corruptly allowed so DWP can create legislation to fuck up the 99.8%+ of other claimants who are genuine just to save money due to lack of job creation). Of course now with high unemployment and huge Government debts this isn’t workable but can be done in future.
When I say refusing jobs – I am talking about people who are deliberately dodging jobs – and jobs as in on more than one occasion, such as 2 or 3 max. This is not deliberate penalisation for leaving a job early because the reason wasn’t due to being paid less than National Minimum Wage; however, there must be safeguards to prevent people dropping off from work into leeching from the state.
This is rather rare, going from full-time work to just benefits would actually be very difficult to adapt to. Housing Benefit/Allowance is normally the deal winner. When I found out about such I have decided that worst case scenario that a part time job that doesn’t lose entitlement to such housing benefit would be better and more constructive then just being on the dole. Its not a full-time job but atleast you are working, earning your own money from your own merits and not trying to be screwed over my Jobcentre Plus. There is also plenty of time to seek full-time work for the days/hours a week you aren’t working.
The problem with the state is no legislation has safeguarded employee wages and/or salary payments. It used to be weekly, then to fortnightly which isn’t too bad, however many employers are now paying monthly… its less Human Resources costs, and better for cash flow.
Jobcentre Plus doesn’t allow for a new type of benefit at the same rate of JSA to be paid 2 weeks into that to help you out, to be later taken back, either at pay day or in instalments. Not all employers will allow for advances on wages – this is a big barrier into going back into work. Pay Day loan companies exist, but APR are around 2500%!! Although a reason why this figure is high is due to the short term length of such loan (i.e. its not over years) they still request a big amount of interest. I have never used one, I assume they either take your word for it or call your employer to confirm which is something you don’t really want your employer to know.
The problem it isn’t about “justice”. It is a REQUIREMENT to appeal to get justice. For example, if you later found out you had good cause or tried to fight a sanction yet you refused to appeal or failed to for whatever reason you wont see the money. In a criminal court… or should I say IN A COURT… for example… if a person was wrongly jailed and his or hers legal team didn’t bother with a defence (unlikely of course), however, the police found the real suspect and brought him to justice, the wrongly accused and jailed wont be serving his or hers jail sentence any longer.
There is no guarantee even after appeal tribunal that you will win a case even with valid points and “good cause” or error of law. If DWP wants to make you a victim they will ring-fence the sanction. They will ensure a Decision Maker doesn’t change the decision. After twisting words… an appeal tribunal is unlikely to do you any favours after all its DWP’s statements of “fact” that they use.
Martin, I sometimes wonder if I am the only unemployed person whom doesn’t watch Jeremy Kyle in the mornings. I assume it is on in the mornings! However, the other stereotype is that unemployed dole-goers don’t even get up in the morning… so try working that out. Obviously a bunch of shit. I actually don’t watch much TV at all – sometimes I watch BBC News in the morning (really early morning) up until before it repeats itself or I get depressed.
Ok Lets look at this logically
1 conservatives and liberal democrats coalition. Cons didn’t have overall control so just because they want to try and do itdoesn’t mean it will get done. People who don’t like it wont vote or will vote against it. If it is too close will get bounced back from the lords
2 Whart they want and what they are going to get is a totally diferent matter remember they are cutting workforce now. So a blighted workforce of the pcs and other unions will get on their wrecking balls as much as possible. If staff know they are going to get the sack they are going to be less receptive to helping their political masters
3 \More unemployed will more than likely involve greater an greater risk of social unrest.
4 Complain complain and complain. If you can for want of a better sentence rub as many MP’s noses in the facts as much as possible. CXomplain and contest everything dig in. SCORCHED earth seems to be a phrasebanded around you give the civil service enough paperwork they are going to want to bite back especially if less and less are around to do the work.
Hello
just spotted this and thought you might be interested if you haven’t seen it before
“Providers launch customer promise
http://indusdelta.co.uk/story/providers_launch_customer_promise/4041
ERSA, a range of providers and Jim Knight launched the new customer promise earlier this week. This acts as an equivalent of the DWP’s Customer Charter for providers, with all 42 signatory organisations promising to abide by the customer service standards in the document. Press release follows.”
There website too http://www.ersa.org.uk/ersa_members
they appear to be of a fixed mind,far easier to blame the individual then the cause,the job centre is a chaotic place where signs posted are of standards’ while inept behaviour is freely experienced and witnessed all around.
i doubt that while these attitudes are held there will be any improvement,its a sad economical situation that extends far beyond the dwp and this where the problems land with unemployment.
http://www.thewelfarestatewerein.com/
The Duncan Smith welfare reform plan: the government does not appear to have accepted his plan yet. There is everything to play for and much to lose.
what materialises remains to be seen,however labour’s bloody mindedness attitude to unemployed people was atrocious,upbeat speeches while the reality was somewhat different,this also gave rise to outside companies eager to cash in on lucrative contracts’ with controversy at every turn grandiose talk at “government level” which was just that and attempted legal cover ups when awkward questions’ were starting to be asked as to the day to day running.still the former government stood by them this was an expensive mistake,while the ability of these organisations to take the cash any solutions to joblessness was not apparent.the tactics relied on falling back on sanctions’ and blaming the individual then the real cause this was or is never going to work or fool anyone.
the goals of placing people into sustainable employment and the equally ridiculous claim of keeping them there are completely at odds with the economic climate in the uk,jobs can and do vanish overnight,the ideas of labours’ plans were always unworkable/unrealistic and a very expensive mistake,tax payers’ money might as well been thrown from the roof of caxton house for whats been achieved by these private companies’.
an economic tight reign has fallen by the wayside sometime ago seen mistakenly as restrictive/uncompetitive but was always open to exploitation placing the uk economy on an unsustainable course for disaster.the end results of this are now being felt by the man on the street.
Well, a lot of criticism reflects the Government’s inability to solve or deal with unemployment (apart from sanctions (not a real solution) and declaring people “in training”) but it is long left ignored that these contracts are solely a fraud of taxpayers money.
Yes, unemployed people are blame for this poor expenditure of taxpayers money, however, it is not the unemployed person who is spending, requesting or endorsing such.
So companies like A4e who are in bed with the Government (or its executives and MPs) are a gentlemans agreement into channeling taxpayers money into these organisations inr eturn for tweaking unemployment figures.
So will A4e flexible deal be scrapped in the long term with the reforms?
Flexible New Deal is to be replaced with the Work Programme.
Don’t expect any major changes likely a rebranding initially.
Hi flexible acording to the treasury they wan to know what they should and shouldnt scrap and what they should and shouldnt allow private companies to run. How about we fill em in
Hi flexible I have written to Iain duncan smith and I have also written to george osbourne. Well he did say that he wanted to hear how to cut the budget. I told him FND is a total waste of space, time and money.
I pointed the information out in a child like manner without being condescending. I put it in the form of a table Pros and Cons so to speak but in my case A4E and \Action For Blind people and I wrote down what has happened in bullet points.
I also told them to contact my mp and yours as well martin.
I agree! FND is a waste of money. I was referred to TNG around 8 months ago. Apart from being put on pointless modules which are nothing more than a 30 minute bite-size-chunk-careers-lesson-module-for-year 9s-at-secondary-school that has been spread out to cover half a day; and made to attend weekly job search that I do at home anyway; they have only referred me to ONE job which happens to have been closed with someone recruited before they even submitted me to it (I only found this out when I chased up the job as I never received the promised phone call from them).
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want nor expect them to take over my job search. I am happy organising my own, however, it would be good for a deemed “professional” that is being paid by the taxpayer through the Government contract that is Flexible New Deal, to a) tap into this “hidden job market” of like 70% or something of all jobs they keep lecturing me and everyone else about and b) create relationships with local employers to create a “back-door” route (i.e. This person is great, s/he can do …. blah blah …. doesn’t want to be unemployed, has stuck in a lot of effort to find work, is always on time to appointments etc.) and basically create a recommendation/reference. None of that happens here.
Do they really not understand that I don’t want to be fucked around? I mean, for one, I am just a number if they don’t get an job outcome, too bad, they still get an all inclusive service fee to pay for my time there. However, I need a job, desperately… I don’t have the patience for a 12 month experimental phase where I am willing to let some organisation interfere with my OK ongoing job search (I say OK as I have had interviews but no job offer) and hinder my chances of getting a job.
Again, as a TNG slave, I do not stop my job search and expect a couple of staff members to undertake it on my behalf (I mean to do that for all their clients would be extreme and near impossible for a decent job search). I might appear annoying complaining all the time but its a simple rule… “The longer you are unemployed, the harder it will get” – its a fact. So to confirm… 8 months, 0 interviews, 0 job applied for (was 1 but after deadline so don’t count – had zero chance of getting it as they already employed someone by then). Is TNG Flexible New Deal helping me? Nope. obviously not. Even worse they had me sanctioned. So I am over half way through Flexible New Deal, done a lot of modules completely useless, attended so many PJA 2 week contact interviews, weekly job search at their offices, and in that time they had not directly helped me at all to find a job.
I believe its important sometimes to help people to help themselves…. give people new skills and the tools to succeed. Not quite applicable as every of these courses you do the same modules over and over again and the fact they are all “common sense” rather than an insight. You would be pissed off a encyclopedia described Egypt as “a country in Africa” especially without even being a tiny bit more specific such as North Africa *and* partly Asia.
Can they justify their laid back approach? Am I “parked” as being expected as not able to ever find work? So for approx 35 weeks I have just been submitted to numerous modules and allowed to continue my own job search (except it has to be at their noisy uncomfortable premises, recorded in full detail, to a specific date and time, for a set duration and without fail subject to a sanction). I expect more, much more, from both Flexible New Deal as a whole and TNG. I wont point the finger of blame too directly on TNG, as if Jobcentre Plus allows the providers to perform (or should I say act) so badly and turn a blind eye to such; a widespread problem that occurred on New Deal where they didn’t learn anything from the complaints of such – it almost becomes acceptable.
It might be immoral taking advantage of say a legal loophole for example, but its not illegal. That means the person can get away with it. To a similar scenario but not down to legislation, if adequate contract enforcement doesn’t exist then its treated as allowed even if documents say otherwise.
Anyway back to your message… Regarding IDS… Con-servatives are scrapping Flexible New Deal by next April and replacing it with the Work Programme. This will just as much be a waste of money, there are savings to be made, but I am sure there will be hidden and unseen costs which will make it more expensive than FND over the years (such as the Spur Programmes and Work Clubs although its likely they wont fall under the same title).
They are likely to agree with what you say but its unlikely the new scheme will be much different. I *GUESS* people will be forced to attend “Work Clubs” weekly to do job search (so similar to FND but stick such service under a branding) and have to attend regular interviews under the Work Programme (just like FND). The difference I recall (if correctly) is a fast track to workfare/”work experience”. Not looking great.
FND, you need to ask to be referred to another provider if TNG if they have only put you forward for one vacancy in 8 months (presumably you have made a lot more applications than that yourself in that period, and the advisers there should rightly feel ashamed!), and take this up with your JCP adviser as well as putting in a complaint to TNG. The new round of contract competition for ‘Work Program’ is due to start at the end of June and if will be awarded on providers ability to meet targets with regards to employment outcomes, so your complaint will carry a lot more weight at the moment.
As a comparison, the provider I work for has (in our city) placed over 150 people into work so far this year and we are working our arses off to try to get more folk into work as this is still below our target set by the DWP. We run weekly ‘jobclubs’ (drop in, help using internet/papers to apply for vacancies, help with application forms, careers advice and rundown on any local vacancies we’ve got from links with employers, trainig provision (SIA Licence, CSCS cards, First Aid, Food hygiene etc), CV help and advice, benefit calculations and anything else we or our clients can think of that might help! One vacancy and general apathy towards clients is inexcusable in TNG!!
There are some providers out there (*cough* A4E *cough*) who have a rep even among other providers for being purely focussed on making money off people trying to get back into work (and a few job agencies also scamming the unemployed) but most of us (certainly in my experience) are genuinely trying to help people out and take professional pride in getting folk back into employment…
Cheers Mike,
I had already tried a transfer of provider (the irony was that TNG suggested sending me to A4e at the beginning)… Jobcentre Plus wasn’t having any of it.
Well, tbh I would say its near impossible to be claiming jobseekers allowance and solely matching 1 vacancy in 8 months (or perhaps its only me who always gets asked to report information on what I done to look for work and who I have applied to) – I mean people should be kicked off for that. I have been averaging around 2 jobs a day (so double what they have done in 8 months).
I am advised I am no longer a Jobcentre Plus “customer” so don’t have an adviser. The EO (many different) I see when signing on doesn’t care neither, last time I signed on I had tried to raise my concerns, she had actually asked how I was finding TNG (as I had mentioned them to say what I had been doing to seek work) so I took the opportunity, she downplayed it – I assumed she thought something to the lines of “you should be looking for jobs yourself” (although I had just produced a list) by the body language.
150 people into work is a great achievement. I am actually thinking of relocation!! haha, where are you based?
Yeah A4e have a bad reputation for that – but at the end of the day its the whole idea of getting money from getting people into work, so profits are to be made, or that is the concept, however, it is important to target clients to their ideal jobs that they are fully capable of and want to (i.e. not like A4e sticking people into random zero hour contract jobs and lying to participants to get them there).
I have to admit a lot of providers are doing well by people on FND, but TNG, for one is not, and they need to be exposed for it. As a FND client who must complete 3 steps minimum a week to seek employment under JSA legislation, I think being submitted to, helped with or being notified of 3 jobs (in particular those that are not advertised) a week is reasonable.
TNG lack any form of MANAGEMENT skills or knowledge (irony is that a) they are part of Avanta which helps businesses under sister company InBiz and directly under Avanta brand) and b) the manager of each centre are known as a “Business Manager”).
There is no infrastructure or proper system in place for distribution of jobs and opportunities. TNG (and other FND providers) should be contacting local employers and developing relationships with them. While I am looking on DirectGov, jobpoints and in the newspaper etc. they should be looking for the hidden jobs and acting somewhat like an agency/affiliate into getting the employers skilled people to work for them – i.e. employers are also customers, not just DWP via guaranteed service fee and potential bonuses.
It is assumed they can develop the cash flow to create these links with local employers. I, like any other jobseeker don’t have the financial resources to contact many employers at a time through speculative letters and telephone queries.
I want at least two opportunities that I cannot discover myself a week (talking averages as labour market varies one month to the next) and at least an interview every 2-4 weeks.
Why don’t they forge links with local employers asking them if they can submit their best candidates for any particular role to them directly for interview? This benefits the employer as to no cost to themselves the professional outside organisation has filtered through hundreds of applications in some detail to find the best candidates (normal recruitment processes are typically less in depth and solely down to that on paper, (time = money) and not other important attributes). It also benefits the jobseeker as it ensures they are having regular REAL interviews (you cant compare to mock interviews).
Jobseekers are not in most cases able to limit their sights to just the town etc. or area they live near. Although unemployment is high there are still a lot of jobs available if you look hard enough. I am in Ipswich, so I always look in Colchester, and Felixstowe for example, and also further afield on occasion like Norwich, Cambridge and London which have rather good transport links. For the contract area, TNG has a big opportunity to create a network of employers to ensure they reach a lot of job outcomes. This is the same for other providers.
The problem is the poor performance for some providers are blamed on the unemployed. Even A4e Emma stated about although more people are unemployed they are harder to help. Each client has to be judged on individual merits but realistically speaking, the work force is better than it has ever been especially with investment in education. It is also misinformed that all unemployed people are “wasters” without qualifications or experience – the credit crunch blew that theory out of the window. I see it as a lot of people with potential not getting what they seek and that the labour market cant support the population – not enough jobs to go round.
Anyway, its great to hear that some providers are working their magic
Fnd the key to it is like I said all along if questions are asked and the money tap is cut fromthese carpet baggers I will be happier. They are supposed to provide a service but dont. The workplacement scheme due to fail as I intend on sending a copy of the TUC Welfare reform greenpaper to every union head office. that says it doesn’t work, it is anti union and anti minimum wage
i personally am sick of the total failures’ of past labour/dwp they are totally out of touch with both attitudes and practices’ an interesting point was made on a sister site of being in a position of pressure to apply for jobs that are just not there,the job centre have always made it sound so easy just walk into one,”whats the problem attitude”.
these are run by thesame people who were saying the taliban were finished eight years ago/during a parliament debate with vince cable denied there was any financial crisis.how can anyone take these people seriously.
when the jobs are not there people apply for anything regardless of any realistic chance of success,then what these job centre chancers do at interviews is have totally unworkable ideas how to solve this.apply for other jobs that have no experience back to square one,expect to travel miles disregarding any chance of getting there at all, to send you for something because they are under pressure.
then blame everyone but themselves.
Ken good points:
1) Jobs that are not there.
Never go chasing something you don’t know even exists. Everything is impossible, untrue or doesn’t exist until its clearly proven that its either possible, true or exists. The world has always been round, back-in-the-day everyone believed it to be flat – it had to be proven before accepted.
I think applying for vacancies which are promoted must come before spec letters. Also more emphasis should be on applying for real jobs that exist than trying to find ones which may or may not.
It has always been a long distorted statistic that up to 80% of jobs are not advertised and therefore known as the “hidden jobs market”. Thats bullshit. They might not be notified via newspaper, jobcentre plus or online websites etc. but that doesn’t make them not being advertised.
Most of the “hidden jobs market” is internal vacancies – these are promoted internally… noticeboards, newsletters and company intranet systems. All these mediums are forms of advertising too. A spec letter doesn’t upgrade you from an outsider to an insider – although some businesses may invite a strong external candidate for interview on the off chance – internal vacancies are popular as internal references and an HR record are much better than an external unreliable references (how much is really true?) and no notes on the person or awareness of their actual work abilities.
I would recommend spec letters to retail businesses – a big chance here; there are always people leaving etc. however in most retail businesses you will indeed be treated like shit. These days, its rolling contracts for a few hours a week with a lot of overtime on top. Overtime is almost always guaranteed but the lower contractual hours is for their safety besides they can get rid of you at any time. Yes, overtime is NMW wage too.
2) Jobs you have no chance of getting.
Its about quality not quantity. Its better to do, say, hmm….. only 3 job applications per week than 15 rush applications. Also, look in the person specification… Essential column and Desirable column. Always cross reference this with the current local job market. If its realistically likely that most candidates will be hitting the desirable column in numerous areas, and you dont, you wont get the job simple. Why waste the time for rejection?
If you feel its unlikely people will have any desirable elements then go for it. If you have one desirable element but not the others, go for it.
If the job description says “Previous 12 months experience desirable but full training will be given to the ideal candidate” – if you don’t have the experience you have no chance of getting the job. If it doesn’t state a period of experience, you stand a greater chance as some employers prefer to retrain everyone (so they work the way that business wants things done).
Also on role based jobs, you can jump but unlikely especially with so many candidates going for jobs.
ASSISTANT -> SUPERVISOR -> ASSISTANT MANAGER -> MANAGER etc.
Only those with a supervisor role or a previous management role stands a chance at a management job. It is normally expected to be an assistant manager before becoming a manager.
So its common sense for most jobs… if you have no idea about mobile phones you will be unsuited in a mobile phone shop although good communication skills would be an advantage.
Some supermarkets are only interested in employing college students. If you can get a part time job while at college, you have your foot in the door, and can give up your decoy college course and if you lucky get a fulltime job there. Very long winded though mind you.
I think its a bad attitude to automatically eliminate jobs, but you must prioritise and choose via realistic chances of getting the job. The job you feel you be best suited at or has the best attributes (wage/salary, perks etc.) should be the application you spend most time on and do first (even if you have other jobs with a closer deadline as long as you can still meet it). Some jobs must be ruled out immediately. Others, stuck in the “maybe” pile.
I will go back to talk about the 3 instead of 15 jobs example. Efficiency exists outside the workplace. The more time to spend on an application doesn’t mean it can be any better. Most people could spend 5 hours doing no better than an application done in 2 hours. It is important that you ensure you have a break, many breaks, including time off from job searching at all – nights out, going to the park, going to watch football match, meeting family/friends etc.
I personally prefer dedicating 2 days a week for job search – the other 5 days are my own time (although I also search online another time in the week but dont submit applications then). You must ensure you have some routine, but a daily routine will be soul destroying and limit efficiency probably to 20%. Your intention isn’t to be some mad factory producing mass job applications on an assembly line.
The problem with the situation is everyone is selfish – an FND provider will want someone (A) who is quite able and over-qualified to be applying for low skilled jobs… if they get the job great, but someone (B) without the qualifications and good work history can’t exactly go and get a job that this other person (A) would be suited for. (Bare im mind for this example, jobs matching person A’s ability exist) The person with this job (A) wont last too long, and will use it as a stepping stone to better things… this other person (B) remains on the dole perhaps working for his or hers benefit.
Silly Fnd you have forgot at least 3 more categories.
Discrimination
Jobs you have no chance of getting as soon as they know you have a disability
Jobs that are already filled
Organisations that post jobs in the public just to cross the t’s and dot the I. Eventhough they will be filled by people already in the organisation.
Token Jobs
Jobs that are alledgedly for disabled and the older person. Secret quotas implemented by organisations. E.G A quota in amerca advertised for firefighters but the people of ethnic minorities were given priority.
Not at all Kyron – I was just expanding that of the comment I was replying to (by Ken). Very good points you have made to add to the existing lot.
“Jobs that are already filled” – Quite agree with the comments you have made on this one: Should employers have to specify this behaviour? Employment agencies are already (and have for a long while now, been) legally required to display notices on job adverts.
Do you think organisations that are externally advertising that are encouraging or otherwise allowing internal candidates to apply, should be forced to specify such on the job advertisement?
Such as:
This isn’t a statement implying that all companies that does this are unfairly distorting a fair process but if the job is open to internal candidates then it should be notified, in my eyes – in my opinion, as a proper recruitment process is to include internal candidates first, and advertise externally is no one meets the criteria… not pick 5 outsides to fill up interview space to test the strength of internal candidates.
.-= *** Last post: Former Labour MP Nick Palmer signs on *** =-.
During a recent TV interview IDS said “work actually helps free people”, a phrase better known to German speakers as Arbeit Macht Frei. A (David) Freudian slip or a sign of a forthcoming final solution to unemployment?
How does IDS know anyway? Has he even done an HONEST days work in his life? I seriously doubt it.
Six-month offer recruitment subsidies £30m
Extension of Young Person’s Guarantee £450m
Two-year Jobseeker’s Guarantee £515m
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287380/Coalition-axes-2bn-projects-agreed-dying-days-Labour-government–8-5bn-limbo.html#ixzz0r86Vely0
Benefits bill overpayments hit £3.1 BILLION in a year – and a third of that was down to bungling officials
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287315/Benefits-overpayments-hit-3-1-BILLION-year.html#ixzz0r87aD1IU
In the 2009-10 financial year, the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority (PADA) – a subsidiary of the Department for Work and Pensions – ran up a £9 million bill on consultants.
But as of March 31, it employed just 14 individuals in such roles – suggesting an average cost per person of nearly £643,000.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287718/Staggering-new-figures-Labour-paid-army-consultants-643-000–EACH.html#ixzz0rEbzbqj2
Deferred pensions for everyone – except MPs. I feel pt and kettle statement coming on here. hypocrites
Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=507125&in_page_id=6&position=moretopstories#ixzz0rxuY7Szh