GETTING TUPE'D TO G4S OR ONE OF THEIR SUBBIES!
Submitted by FedUp on Sat, 04/06/2011 - 7:15am
Are you being TUPE'd to one of G4S's subbys for the Work Programme? Our team are in Yorkshire and Humberside and are being refused TUPE rights from FND to Work Programme and would like to know details of who you are being TUPE'd to and if this is end to end provision (they are doing all or part of the delivery). We are trying to make contact with anyone who is being refused TUPE for whatever reason directly from FND or indeed has been included on a TUPE list to one of G4S's subbys who are not delivering end to end provision. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you
There are a number of posts suggesting DWP are making up the rules on TUPE and thus determining whether or not UPE applies to legacy programmes, the following is a FOI request and asnwer from DWP, perhaps this will help clarify that TUPE is a matter of law based on fact. There are too many hysterical assumptions and mickey mouse "lawyers" on here spouting dangerous "advice" -
Freedom of Information request 1089/2011
Received 14 April 2011
Published 20 May 2011
Information request
‘I am currently working my notice and end Friday 15th April 2011. I have been working on an NDDP contract and am amazed that NDDP isnt part of the TUPE over to the new providers of the Work Programme. We are getting mixed information over whether it is or not.
Under the Freedom of Information Act, I would like you to send me the document which states that NDDP isn't to be part of the TUPE over to the Work Programme.’
DWP response
I am afraid on this occasion that I am unable to provide you with a document that states New Deal for Disabled People isn't to be part of the Work Programme, because no such document exists.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) does not determine whether TUPE applies between contracted employment providers, and has not done so with the introduction of the Work Programme. DWP expects current and new contractors to comply with the law in the application of TUPE Regulations and therefore suggest you seek clarification on this matter from your own employer.
G4S aren't doing TUPE and are encouraging their Subs not to also allegedly....
neither are Avanta apparently and seetec not playing the game
Now then Mr Grayling are these Primes in breach of contract or what
time to put your money where your mouth is
No job losses indeed.....who is looking silly now
@cheekymonkey
The following was just copied by me, directly from Avanta's webpage:
'Avanta and the Work Programme
Avanta is committed to both keeping its partners informed as well as to consulting with them. Our existing subcontractors in FND have been previously briefed about government decisions to replace the programme with the new Work Programme from 2011'
I would guess that as by their own admission 'WP replaces FND' that they would find it very difficult to deny that TUPE is applicable.
That's what I've heard Trainman. A total lockdown in my area.
'We don't recognise TUPE' they say. Hey I don't recognise gravity - I'm going flying....
@ voice of reason
I would take that in the same vein as graylings no job losses
Perhaps, but if it's black and white on a website, it may stand up in an ET :)
I wonder how this is possible when a part of the ITT for the WP was how you would tackle TUPE ??
Attended a recent meeting with G4S their position is they have no obligation under TUPE as primes and 30% of their subs have agreed TUPE applies to them so will be receiving staff, but if individuals haven't been contact already then they are not eligible for TUPE.
This is confused by other primes in the same CPA accepting an allocation of TUPE staff, so seems unfair to those who by a process of elimination thought they were going to G4S.
There really needs to be a definitive answer from somewhere if TUPE applies to staff. If some primes have acted in the 'spirit' of TUPE with no legal imperative it a a huge disadvantage to those not selected in a seemingly random process.
If TUPE does not apply but some primes are doing it anyway, for those left out who would they take to a tribunal? G4S who as primes have no delivery? their subs? which one?
This doesn't apply with regard to all primes/subbies, but, where organisations are not recognising eligibility for TUPE, I would look at the CPAs where the same organisation has not 'won' to see whether they are TUPEing their staff into winning primes/subbies. They can't have it both ways and, if they have an argument for TUPEing out their own staff, this would certainly provide good evidence against them in an ET when they are not TUPEing in elsewhere.
FACT. I am being TUPEd today. At my introduction yesterday I was told that Avanta, Seetec and G4S 'strongly feel that TUPE applies' to FND and ND.
No mention of particular CPA's. The issue is I think delay is encouraging rumours. But when it happens it happens quickly. Midday Monday I was told to attend an introduction on Tuesday at 9.00.
Currently it seems that TUPE applies dependant on the primes legal representation.....I spoke to ACAS as I am a 'potential'G4S TUPE candidate (yeh right!!)to find out how and why in the Kent area can one prime say yes to TUPE (AVANTA) and the other G4S say NO, how does this work??? As a mear, mortal tutor on FND it seems as though it is a process that one company does one thing and the other does another - BUT the whole issue is that we are all working for the same agenda to get umemployed people back into work - no matter if its called 'new deal, flexable new deal, work programme etc, etc.....for those who have battled in this line of work for many years we know that in the end it boils down to the same content on ANY provision you work on - to HELP clients to gain work.......so surely that is that - FND, WP whatever its the same so TUPE should stand. Its just a pity that legal folk can play around with words and contract guidelines to say WP is a different programme and FND does not match it so TUPE doesnt apply - well come and see what we do - see it in a year and I bet youd have the same opinion - we help people get into work -SIMPLE!!!!!!!!!!!
As you can tell am a wee bit unhappy - and may find myself on a delightful WP scheme once we get the boot.
Hi all I came across this pressure group and they would like to hear your opinion about you being made redundant in the welfare to work sectors the more of you get in touch the better the chances something will be done look at their pedigree first before you disregard them they have and can make a difference.
The best way to do this is via their Uservoice website, at 38degrees and look for the link campaign suggestions you can also keep up to date with which campaigns are running, or whether yours has been taken up.
G4S may now be facing several legal chalenges it seems...
@ thankyouforall
been on 38 degrees and done it.....
see you all in Manchester June 30th hopefully
@cpm
G4S can legally resist TUPE as they themselves are not directly handling any delivery of WP themselves. It is all being sub-contracted so I fail to see how your contract of employment could switch to them. You might need to show that G4S are directing their sub-contractors to deny people their legal rights (virtually impossible).
The TUPE confusion seems to stem from areas where the local authorities are large parts of the delivery chain. They are refusing to recognise TUPE full stop.
This would appear to be very ironic as I thought TUPE was originally designed to protect the rights of local authority workers whose jobs were threatened by private sector tendering. Seems some employees are more equal than others.
If I find myself out of work because a sub-contractor 'doesn't recognise TUPE' that sub-contractor had better pray that I am not referred to them as a customer as I will not be co-operative and they'll never get the details of my employer to claim a job outcome from me.
Thank You Cheeky
Agree with everything said. Problem we all have is doesnt really matter what the primes or subbies are saying about tupe. The money isnt in the work programme for all of us who work in the sector now so if we did tupe somewhere and if that subbie had enough staff already, even if they were good and did fair redundancy to include all existing team, someone still gets made redundant whether it one of us who we t in through tupe or one of existing team. Either way someone loses out and that really has nothing to do with tupe, its the sad fact of life that we have no control over.
Well said windy. I have been TUPED and all that happens is the threat of eventual redundancy is no longer from my former employer but from my new employer. As the saying goes 'same s**t different day'. Or in this case different employer.
We are all in same situation and although well miffed about the tupe situation i just think that if i get made redundant because i know there isnt a job with my current employer and none with the new subbies there is no point starting major legal battle for tupe when my personal situation would be the same whether it applied or not. Not being defeatist but no point banging on subbies doors telling them to give a job when they dont have one. As long as i get paid my pittance of my redundancy which i am entitled to regardless of tupe i'm not going to fight primes or subbies when really, it is what it is. The sector is smaller with less cash. We are victims of that but that not becausevof tupe. I'm going to focus on doing what i tell my customers to do, dont go what doesnt exist anymore, find something that does.
Well we had our consultation yesterday and the Good news was that they do recognise TUPE (4star). The bad news was almost 50% of people in the pot are being made redundant. On top of that everyone has to apply for a position and when taken on you have to sign their contract and accept their terms including in most cases take a lower salary to do the same job !!! The only thing you keep is your length of service. Having been Tupe'd before these are not the same conditions but they are telling us that because WP is a completely new contract with a completely new funding stream then they can do this. This provider are not only cherry picking their staff but also getting them on the cheap!!! Does anyone know if this is actually legal?
I would like to post a comment but have been instructed by my employer that I mustn't! Whoops!
We are all in same situation and although well miffed about the tupe situation i just think that if i get made redundant because i know there isnt a job with my current employer and none with the new subbies there is no point starting major legal battle for tupe when my personal situation would be the same whether it applied or not. Not being defeatist but no point banging on subbies doors telling them to give a job when they dont have one. As long as i get paid my pittance of my redundancy which i am entitled to regardless of tupe i'm not going to fight primes or subbies when really, it is what it is. The sector is smaller with less cash. We are victims of that but that not becausevof tupe. I'm going to focus on doing what i tell my customers to do, dont go what doesnt exist anymore, find something that does.
Larry the Lamb - just be grateful you are having a job. There are many who do not have that luxury and at least you can be earning something while you are jobseeking
.
Hi, I think you have misunderstood, 50% of the pot i am in don't have a job and that includes me. What gets me is that this notice has all been left to the last minute with just over a week to go before transfer they drop this bomb shell on us. Surely the providers would have known at bid stage what no's they needed, and instead of making staff aware that they will be redundancies we have all been kept in the dark until the eleventh hour!! Just enough time for us all to do something NOT!!
@larrytheamb, 8-22pm
Might be worth checking that with your lawyer/union official or ACAS. That is not how TUPE is supposed to work. Your existing terms and conditions of employment are preserved under TUPE, that is the whole point. It sounds as if you have been offered a new job. If that is the case then ,clearly, you accept the terms offered or attempt to negotiate. However that does not appear to be a TUPE as I understand it. Accept reduced pay and worse conditions or redundancy- not much of a choice is it. I think on the Kubler-Ross model we seem to be entering the bargaining and depression phase!
Good luck to everyone, we all need it.
Its seems we are all in similar sinking boats eh.....
It would be good to know how much our 'highers' knew about 'To TUPE or not to TUPE' during bidding stages and how much this was discussed with the primes and subbies at that point - this is what I do not get, how one prime in an area (Kent) do one thing and the other the complete opposite - is it just me or why can this system be simplified - I know life aint as easy as that and we are ruled by bits of paper in soo many ways...............
Good luck to all tho x
in regards to TUPE, we, in south yorkshire are in the same boat, companies taht have got the contract thinking they are not part of TUPE, a large company, A4e, stated they are not in TUPE, but turns out they are, we are not going there, but currently waiting for 5 other subbies from SERCO to let us know who we are going to, and they are matching us to companies from the job descriptions that we currently do.....us having no say in where we go....all we keep getting told is we will email you when we have further information, its a very trustating time for everyone concerned, if we dont agree to go where we are placed, we are making ourselves out of work!!!
Hi All
Copy and paste the sentence bellow in to the campaign suggestions forum search area and vote please on "worldwideweb.38degrees.org.uk"
"saving our welfare to work sector (URGENT) being decimated due to the new work programme"
Maccy80, frustrating indeed, its a huge mess, and I feel sorry for everyone caught up in this chaos and losing their jobs and not knowing whats going on etc. No one should be treated like this and kept in Limbo. Thats both sides of the coin, staff and claimants.
entire systems to pot. And I dont trust G45 as far as i can spit as a company. Spy and security firm that they are. Why cant work placement and training staff just be left alone and kept under one unbrella firm or just employed by the government and not farmed out willy nilly to the highest bidders..worlds gone potty. you all have my sympathy on this one commrades.. solidarity both sides the fence
unsung swansong - G4s are not a "Spy and security firm", read their website before you spout crap. They were NOT the highest bidder, and I think you mean lowest bidder, based on the discounts handed back to DWP - that "honour" goes to Ingeus.
I am in the G4S supply chain and they have been absolutely briliant, better then the others.
"Why cant work placement and training staff just be left alone and kept under one unbrella firm" - because it did not work before hence the big shake up - roll on the mighty Work Programme.
Yep I Can agree I have Interview with G4s next week as a customer service advisor at jobcentre plus from delivering to directing jcp customers
@ disgruntled you glowing report on G4S sounds like you work for a sub contractor that was already built into the bid. And at a guess your emploer is one that is refusing to take part in the TUPE process either in or out. Apologies if you have actually been TUPEd into yoiur current position because I am only guessing.
I think the issue is the lack of information and movement on TUPE that isn't 'absolutely brilliant'.
They are one of the three providers in my CPA and the only one that hasn't moved on TUPE yet. So even if they are absolutely brilliant they cannot possible be described as better than the others
of course we were built into the bid, the primes had to name their supply chain for the bid.
As I understand things as G4S do not deliver any outcomes directly they have no positions to tupe in or out, the facts are simple. With regards their supply chain; whether they tupe in/out is really up to them. The other primes are more complicated as they deliver AND manage a supply chain hence tupe may or may not apply to their own delivery part. To say that G4S (or any Prime) is de;iberatly directing their subbies not to adhere to tupe is complete nonesense.
C'mon the Work Programme, can't wait to finally get started.
Nope, the primes are collaberating to deny TUPE eligibility.
Fact.
I don't think all primes are doing so. I know two out of three in CPA7 have TUPEd staff this week. The other one (G4S) isn't delivering but sub contracting it all out.
@ disgruntled The question is then why aren't sub contractors TUPEing.
I know you are excited about delivering the work programme. Everyone that is currently employed to deliver it is probably looking forward to it too. But a bit of empathy for those that aren't so fortunate might be in order. Thats like turning up at a road accident and cheering because the one person you know is alive and well but 3 strangers didn't survive.
I have been TUPEd so I can be pleased for a few months but I am not celebrating publicly because I know a lot of people that haven't been so fortunate.
Anonymous - absolute nonsense, see below - fact
stan.glide - there are many posts on here of people tupe'ing to subbies - fact
I am not "celebrating" but I am not ashamed to show the process works and there are good primes and good subbies involved.
I agree Bring the work programme on = the quicker it starts the quicker it fails
you heard it here first the WP will become a memory of disasters in a couple of years if not months..........The Mess, The lies and the truths will all gradually come to the fore in the not too distant future lets see who is still around in 12 months
disgruntled - Thats not what I am getting at.
The G4S subby you work for - are they TUPEing?
Because if they are the sad saga isn't over yet because you will get redundancies.
If they aren't point made!
Disgruntled, i have the evidence in black and white
Do you want me to send you the emails ? If you can think of a way for me to get it to you without me having to risk legal action by posting it word for word on here then i will gladly give it to you.
Trust me, they are collaborating.
Fact
many of our staff who have been tuped to subbies have also been made aware that they could still be made redundant? so noone is safe under tupe
One prime actually told some staff you will come over on out terms & Conditions ...er hello!!! TUPE - Transfer of Undertakings (Protection Employment)?? summat missing here somewhere
FROM ACAS
Transfer of undertakings (TUPE)
The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) protects employees' terms and conditions of employment when a business is transferred from one owner to another. Employees of the previous owner when the business changes hands automatically become employees of the new employer on the same terms and conditions. It's as if their employment contracts had originally been made with the new employer. Their continuity of service and any other rights are all preserved. Both old and new employers are required to inform and consult employees affected directly or indirectly by the transfer.
Anonymous - go on shock me, post your black and white evidence!!!
i have given it to Tacitus my friend, doesnt matter much as of today i am out of the game.
I thought better than to post it on Indus Delta, so i gave it to Mr.Fightback's media contact, and Tacitus...., just for good measure to get his opinion.
I have a lot of respect for you Mr.Disgruntled, you are quite lucid, and very articulate, and in the endgame you have in fact won as you are still in frontline delivery for G** and was from the outset of the tendering process..., congratulations on your continued employment, and your warm embracing of your new taskmasters.
But
I have evidence of corporate complicity with your taskmasters, and i feel i have given that evidence to the correct people after taking legal advice on what i have released.
All 3 primes in my CPA had a meeting recently in my CPA to get their TUPE denial story straight, trust me on that....
Lets see where we go from here
the company I did work for signed an indemnity with the subs so we could not bring a grievance against them. What does any one thing of that?
the company I did work for signed an indemnity with the subs so we could not bring a grievance against them. What does any one thing of that?
the company I did work for signed an indemnity with the subs so we could not bring a grievance against them. What does any one thing of that?
the company I did work for signed an indemnity with the subs so we could not bring a grievance against them. What does any one thing of that?
some of the guys from my company had a chance to meet with the pony tailed wonder boy who`s running G** WP on wednesday, after telling them that they are wrong and he is right about TUPE. he offered them about 20 jobs to cover over 200 people left after the other prime have done thier TUPE allocation . and then has the cheek to say he expects most of the workers to find thier way back in to the sector when the flows increase next year .
discipline, grievance, and absence is contained in your employment contract
Grievance is a statutory right contained in ERA
Don't ever forget it...., Period.
If you found a dodgy crisp in your packet, you can complain, and it would not affect your rights
Grievance procedure is the same statutory right. Although i'm sure that a grievance process would be resolved in Et, or EAT by a settlement of more than a new bag of quavers....
As for pony tailed wonderboy, he sounds like the G** equivalent of Gordon Gecko.
sounds like a scumbag....
Which doesn't say much for the employment policy of G** really...
Greed is good..., you may find employment next year
Cold comfort....
By the way, would you trust your future to a frontline advisor with a ponytail ?
Nope, neither would i.
Mullet boy will find me a job..., i think not.
FACT: We have been denied TUPE rights by one of of G4S's subbies - have our current employers looked after us??? Absolutely not! We have just been informed that we are able to work on a Fixed Term Contract for the remainder of the FND contract but by doing so will give up our rights to any redundancy pay! Great Deal for those already being left out in the cold - Tough Shit you haven't been allocated a TUPE employer but you can work on a FTC for another 3 months to bail us out but forget about any redundancy! FFS - how is that legal??????? Talk about not being given a choice in the matter? What would you do? Do you turn up for work on Monday or not? I cant believe this is happening and nobody is doing anything! Its like working in the Victorian ages! Be grateful you have something - talk about being thrown the crumbs!
I ate my crumbs today mate
I am now unemployed as a direct result of not being TUPE eligible
I am spoilt for choice of who to offer their day in ET
Victorian ages had more employment choices
Don't know if you're aware anonymous but my mate works at an ET and she has told me they are even cutting back on these. In my region they have shut one major city one down (its in the process of closing) she is just glad it wasn't our major city!!!! Long waiting queue for ET it looks!!!
Anonymous - I think you have made a comment that sums all this up very well. You said that you are spoilt for choise of who to offer their day in an ET. That is the point that really makes TUPE not apply. Although I work in a subbie that has been denied TUPE and they have tried with the Primes to apply it, my employer does know that TUPE does not apply because of the fragmentation that has occurred. Way too legal for me but my friend in HR said that although they are fighting for TUPE to apply, really they know that because of the law of TUPE and the was things have been split down, the legal body that is needed to transfer (don't quote me on this, no a legal bod!) has gone and that is that - therefore you cannot identify who to transfer to. Not the Primes fault I guess, they didn't set the structure for our CPA, DWP did. And I also know that DWP has never said that TUPE will apply, they have always sat on that fence and said that if it applies then it should be applied - really? What a revelation. But they have said that it "might" apply, but not that it does. My other mate works in a subbie who is in the G4S supply chain and she says that they have been great so far and when I asked her about TUPE, she said that they have been very clear from the outset that they would not give legal advice to their supply chain and it was down to the subbies to make their own decisions. So although there are more conspiracy theories on here than those on who shot JFK, I dont think there is anything to tell. It is what it is. Unless someone is going to tell me G4S shot JFK?
Hi All
Copy and paste the sentence bellow in to the campaign suggestions forum search area and vote please on "worldwideweb.38degrees.org.uk"
"saving our welfare to work sector (URGENT) being decimated due to the new work programme"
I would swap grayling for JFK, seems like a fair deal to me.
I'm sure that Mr.Kennedy would have run the work programme a damn sight better than this shambles, and anyone denying TUPE rights would have had explosives implanted in their cigars much like Mr.Castro did, or keeping the fishes company by showing off their nice concrete wellies, thanks to Mr.Giancana & Co.
Whilst in Dealey Plaza the crowd waits for their chance to wave to Mr.Grayling in his open top limousine....
As a worker with with a former prime provider in east london I am horrified at how we have been treated. Starting from possible redundancies without any consultation, then to tupe and now having to reapply for our jobs and told that those who fail will be tupe'd over. We have been treated appallingly and the consultation process is a joke. Some of us are considering legal action and would suggest that others do the same.
@FedUp on Sat - "FACT: We have been denied TUPE rights by one of of G4S's subbies". If the prime/subbie has looked at the evidence and concluded that TUPE does not apply then you have not been denied your right as there was no right to TUPE. The full entity must still exist at transfer and as there has been so much fragmentation the entity has gone, with it goes TUPE, it might seem harsh but TUPE is not there to ensure you have a job for life if the contract you are on ceases to exist pnly to be replaced by something new, this is the case for legacy programmes and WP. I doubt very much anyone will get as far as an ET as they are strict these days, in fact you could end up paying costs if you try to bring a case that has no chance of winning. It is a complex area and you can bet your last penny that the Primes will have invested in some very good TUPE advice, same goes for the supply chain. I know in some areas that some primes need more staff and have simply transferred the losing contractors staff, others have stated that TUPE does not apply but have offered guaranteed interviews for all affected. There are always winners and losers and other industries go through this regularly (Security, cleaning, logitics, catering, facilities management etc etc) it is nothing new. Some of the posts on here have become a complete joke and I know some industry professionals who are completely disgusted with the way the so called "workers" are portraying things, but hey each to his own opinion. I hope the detractors will at least have the bottle to come out and apologise once the work programme starts seriously helping the unemployed it is aimed for. I for one will be working my hardest to ensure success, roll on Monday.
My gripe is that 75% of our staff have been TUPE'd from FND to Work Programme and 25% haven't, all in the same CPA - if they are going to do this then at least give everyone a fair crack of the whip. For the 25% who have been unfortunately allocated onto a non-recognising TUPE provider then to be offered a short term contract to clear up FND but by accepting this you are giving up your right to any redundancy from anyone is appalling! Some staff have long term service and are being told to take it or leave it. With regards to fragmentation - G4S are happy to say that their subby is delivering only the front end of the provision and this is their reasoning behind refusing TUPE but as yet they have not disclosed who is delivering the back end of the provision? The small amount of staff this relates to feel as though they are not wanted by the prime or their subbies and are now informed they dont have a job with their existing provider either, all without any TUPE or redundancy consultation at all. This is neither legal nor ethical. It is not about expecting a job for life - I accept that there will be casualties in this whole sorry affair but the way in which this has been dealt with is disgraceful. I am pleased for you disgruntled that you are looking forward to Monday and I too hope that this shambles will eventually work out, especially for those dedicated individuals who have been forced out of the industry through no fault of their own. I for one have made a decision to leave the industry permanently - an awful shame as I have 12 years experience and am good at what I do, but there you go, I'm just another pawn in a very political game and was foolish enough to think I was valued for the contribution I could make. Silly me!
@disgruntled...well said. I'm in the redundant pool but this is not the fault of primes or subbies and to be frank the posts on this site make me really annoyed that supposed knowledgable people within this sector just dont get it. THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH JOBS. THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN THE WORK PROGRAMME TO SUPPORT ALL OF US ANYMORE. This has nothing to do with tupe. What do people want subbies to do? Magic jobs out of thin air? Yes, some employers havent dealt with this in the right way and primes too, but that doesnt change the fact thst tupe'ing to another company that doesnt have any jobs still makes you redundant. What are you all thinking? That subbies are keeping their vacancies hidden for the fun of it?.."let's not tell those tupe folk that we have stacks of cash to recruit the whole lot of them but for the hell of it we'll break the law just to be evil to deny their rights..." Get real. If the case was clearcut and tupe applied then it would have been but fragmentation means it doesnt so stop wasting energies chasing what doesnt exist and lets all focus on getting other jobs. Harsh words but why should an employer who doesnt know me have to pay my redundancy when my current employer, who i have made money for on fnd by placing people, not have to? You are all fighting cos u are angry, but not for the right reasons.
I would be quite happy if my current employer was agreeing to pay my redundancy but it appears that nobody wants to - that is my gripe. I certainly dont expect a subbie or new prime to pay it, just the organisation I have worked for.
@Fedup. You have a very valid point and this has no connection to tupe at all. I dont want to become one of the many mickey mouse lawyers on here but i would suggest that if you were eligible for redundancy befire being offered the 3mnth ftc then the extension constitutes a continuation of contract and therefore redundancy would be applicable at the end of that period. Worth getting FREE legal advice from an employment lawyer and dont overcomplicate things by involving tupe. If you werent eligible for a redundancy payt before the 3mnth offer then not worth pursuing but if the 3mnths takes you over the 2yr period then i'd check. Sounds like your employer wants to have their cake and eat it. If some of your colleagues gave tupe'd out elsewhere and you feel you missed boat by your employer allocating you in wrong pot, then they haven't followed right redundancy protocol so worth mentioning that too.
@ Disgruntled - Fact, only a Tribunal CAN and WILL decide if TUPE applies, NOT the prime or sub. You say "I know some industry professionals who are completely disgusted with the way the so called "workers" are portraying things" They have obviously not had to go through some of the very bad handling of the situation that a vast majority of workers have. I can assure you that there will be huge number of ETs taken through unions who will back their members 100%.
@ Windy You say "why should an employer who doesnt know me have to pay my redundancy when my current employer, who i have made money for on fnd by placing people, not have to? You are all fighting cos u are angry, but not for the right reasons" I'm at a loss, you are totally missing the point here. The contract was bid for by these companies, TUPE was included in that bid, they won the bid, they abide by the contract! Your existing company doesn't pay your redundancy as your contract is simply meant to be transfered to the WINNER of the contract - how more simple do you need it to be??? For example, did you sign a contract when you started any of your jobs?? Did you agree to the terms and conditions of that contract?? Did you agree that if you renage on your T&Cs of contract you'd then suffer the consequences?? I think you find yourself saying yes to these. Just like the companies who won the WP contract, agreeing to abide by it, agreeing to the T&Cs of the contract - yet in the end renaging on it - what do we do when we renage on a contract? We pay the consequences!!!!! We are "fighting because we are angry" you say, too right we are!!! Do you expect anyone who is losing their job, career etc to be happy??? We all know there are not enough jobs to support us all, the change in Government sealed that for us didn't it, so yes Windy - I can guarantee you we all "get it". Everyone "gets it" when they feel the brown stuff falling on them from a great height. "What do we want subbies to do" I'll tell you what we want subbies to do - abide by the contract they won, follow through their legal obligations to us all as they agreed and maybe then, even if they wanted to make us redundant - at least we'd have notice periods and redundancy - because as it stands right now for hundreds if not thousands of us, the companies that aren't accepting TUPE take away our rights, our notice period and our redundancy..leaving us with nothing!! That Windy IS the point!!!
I agree with Y-HW2W I accept most primes,ex primes and subcontractors all are in difficult positions and staff will lose jobs but this does not absolve any company of their duty to not only provide the basic decency of care to staff who were instrumental in their success but also their legal obligations such as proper meaningful consultation, right to elect rep payment of redundancy incured, support staff who are effected, understand the stress,anxieties pressures staff are going through facing redundancy then TUPE. Understand what it feels like to be hurled from pillar to post and sold to the highest bidder.These very same companies then have the audacity to write in their glossy literature and staff handbooks how much they value those who work for them.Some even have IIP status.
For most of us we love the job we do helping supporting people and the very thought of not being able to continue doing that is frightening thats why we are angry but the fact that our employers have lost sense of any sense of fair play leaves us no choice but to consider legal action
Y-HW2W - I agree with you and posted almost the exact same wording, I also posted wording where DWP made it very clear they cannot and did not agree whetehr TUPE applied. I cannot see how you feel an employer is breaking their side of the contract if they have lost the right to work with JCP and your role ceases to exist, you either TUPE to a new provider where applicable or you are made redundant. If TUPE does not exist and you qualify for redundancy then you receive what is due - fact and there is a government sponsored pool of money if your employer goes bust and cannot pay you redundancy. If people feel the need to go to a tribunal then they should absolutely do that, I fear they would not get far though as the entity does not exist any more at the POINT of transfer. It is a legal point but an important one.
Also, you do not have to be going through this to form an opinion that some people on here are out of order hence mu (dusgusted" comment, let's have sensible posts and debate but do not resort to plumbing the depths as some have done.
Fed up - without knowing the full facts re the 75/25 point you made it is difficult to be accurate but it could be (as I mentioned earlier) that some providers do NOT recognise TUPE but are happy to employ staff as they need them/
Windy - the voice of reason, well said
I am not making light of people losing their jobs; far from it as I was in a redundancy consultation pool. I kept my head amd looked at options (I know some people feel they have none) and it worked out for me as it has done for many hundreds, if not thousands of others.
I know of a "specialist" training provider who received esf money to train people but they did not have any job outcomes built into their model, their service is duplicated by many pther organisations who have strong employer links and a track record of moving trainees into work, now if you only had enough money to work with one of them who would you chose??? hence one company that simply took money for a pretty basic service now find itself having to lay staff off - this is where a load of the losses will be; with organisations who rode the gravy train for too long.
As a provider if you do not have enough jobs then you need to let people go, it is a simple equation, very few companies will pay for staff they do not need as the money is just not there.
Quick question to those feeling that the poor old employers are in a quandry because there are too many people chasing too few jobs in the sector.
In my area we are receiving twice the number of referrals from the JC under the WP as we did under FND. Our 'private army' prime newbie (Super Injunction says NO!) has done everything short of insisting that we place electronic tags on ourselves when we sign-in and has buried us in red tape. The workload has doubled, not halved. The customers will be harder to deal with and we have been given some really nasty areas to cover under the new contract - Kandahar looks more appealing than where we're going.
If they do not feel that there is sufficient margin to operate the WP then why did they bid for it? There is little room for cost cutting as we do not have any fat to trim, I doubt any supplier does. Did they not cost out the contracts? Did they or did they not,based on the number of projected referrals make a business decision that there would be a sufficient return on investment to bid? So why are they now saying there are too many people and we can't afford to pay them. Some fools want their heads banging together.
As others have said - TUPE was expressly dealt with in the bidding process and all primes ,and by extension, sub-contactors signed up to adequately providing for it. Why should they walk away from their contractual obligations? If the employees did that there would be consequences......
@Y-hw2w. I havent missed the point at all. Infact i have made my point. Have u actually seen the tender documents that possible subbies completed? i have, my employer showed them to all the team. The docs asks what experience companies had of tupe and how theyd dealt with it previously but try and go through it with a fine tooth comb like we have and you'll find nothing to explicitly say tupe will or does apply. Therefore the contracts that subbies have do not have tupe in them. therefore they are not breaking their contract. This perhaps is what people need to take into account before they shell out loads of money and energy on legal advice because if a subbie is not contractually bound to apply it because there is no legal responsibility for them to do it then i would suggest this might be quite a weighty piece of information an ET would take into account...and to your point that whether tupe applies isnt down to a prime or a subbie to decide but down to an ET...on that point you are correct in the same way a jury decides on guilt, but the previous case law can give a very good indication of which way something will go and here it isnt in the favour of all of us in the tupe pool. So THAT is what i meant when i said some people just dont it. Tupe diesnt apply to me, even if it did there is no job to go to. They are the facts.
@Fightthepowa. I'm presuming that you havent been directly involved in a bidding process before? when my mate in a winning sub did his bid they did multiple costing exercises to value the contract and bottom line is that there is very limited money in it and the first two years are very lean, almost operating at a loss until the sustained payts kick in. Why and how should they have factored in an unknown number of tupe staff that they cant afford, dont currently employ and have no legal reason to do so? my mates company are in a position to carry themselves for the first couple of years untik the money starts to come in but not if they had increased and unquantifiable costs at the tightest point in the contract. Dwp hasnt obligated them to apply tupe because they csnt because the case law all indicates that it doesnt apply.
@FedUp In answer to your post on 11/6 G4S literature and website make their supply chain clear. In Y&H SOVA, Pertemps and I2I all have contracts for job brokers and in work support, City Works and East Riding Council are not contracted for In Work Support and that contract has gone to Renovo.
@Anonymous I have watched this site with interest over the last month and have felt sympathy, empathy and a range of other emotions to those affected by this situation. However your comments have resorted to insulting and offensive comments about an individual's appearance and these are unforgivable. I am disappointed moderators of this site have not removed these comments. Shameful!
well said Jeca and Windy - sensible posts at last - there is hope
see the discussion - Positive experience of the Work Programme
@disgruntled
"However your comments have resorted to insulting and offensive comments about an individual's appearance and these are unforgivable"
Have i missed something here ? When did this happen ?
i think you may be getting confused here, as i did when i logged in the other day and found posts by 'Anonymous' that i didn't post.
I worked out that Indus Delta seem to have a posting policy that allows you to not enter a username, in which case the forum lists you by default as 'Anonymous' Whereas i actually chose 'Anonymous' as my username....
Boy did i pick the wrong username. If you can find somewhere where you apparently think i have posted an offensive comment, then please point it out to me, as i cant seem to find it
anonymous- they're referring to the comments of sean g4s's md ponytail
Ah, i see..., is he the managing director of G*S ? I didn't know that. Neither did i know he was called Sean, or that he was the MD.
I can honestly say i have never met Sean, or any other employee of G*S in my life, i would have done had they suggested a meeting with us to explain their reasoning on TUPE..., but they chose not to suggest a meeting.
I think when your company is linked to the Afghan Embassy scandal via ArmorGroup, possible corporate manslaughter charges over the death of Angolan deportee Jimmy Mubenga, messrs Powell and Stokoe (G*S employees) apparently responsible for the death of someone whilst on transport duties, and the escape of 3 prisoners only last month from a G4S transport up in Lancashire then your hairstyle should really be the least of your worries...
LOL @ anonymous - if you go into your 'my account' you can change your user name, maybe the realy anonymous LOL
@ anonymous - correction, I was at the g4S TUPE meeting last week, where all subbies where invited as well as Serco and their supply chain (neither turned up), it was all explained very well by the pony tailed Sean (and what has his pony tail got to do with this?), I accept that some of his points disappointed people but in the end everyone seemed to accept that G4S NEVER had a TUPE obligation and their supply chain have acted properly. I understand other TUPE meetings in their other areas also took place last week. - need to get your facts straight if you are going to go off on one.
My facts are quite straight i can assure you.., G*S may have met you in your own CPA, but neither myself nor any other staff in my company attended a G*S meeting last week.
I may be forgetful at times, but i'm sure i would have remembered it had it happened. What i do recall from last week however was having a meeting with quite a few staff to go through the process of lodging our own claims for jobseekers allowance.
I also cant work with 'i understand other TUPE meetings in other areas took place'
I 'understand' the moon is made of cream cheese.
But i have no concrete proof that this is the case
Disgruntled is correct. G4s held meetings in all their cpa's and the presentation they delivered has been circulated around all outgoing subs. I've seen it. @anonymous...are you sure your employer is filtering all the information down? Although i am in a tupe pool, two of my colleagues attended one of the meetings and they relayed that the presentation was matter of fact and fair and mirrored what out hr department had feared (in terms of confirming the reasons they knew why tupe doesnt apply). The legal fact is that tupe doesnt apply and i, for one, accept that and put no blame on the primes or subs for concluding this bdcause if my employer was in the same position, i would be fully expecting them to be doing the same thing...and they would be.
Or maybe the meeting took place after the entire advisory staff had left every regional office building on the way to the jobcentre...
Being left behind in the TUPE applies/does not apply category, I can actually say that I am now sitting back and watching the battle commence. Not enough jobs, survival of the fittest, subbies falling by the wayside quicker than I can say 'Chris Grayling we told you so'. I doubt there will be any winners in this whole fiasco - customers or staff! When this whole debarcle has settled down lets hope WP actually does what it says on the tin but I doubt the contents of the tin will be anywhere as appealing as the packaging!
Juicy pear halves on the label, and cat food on the inside no doubt.
I had quite an eye opening day today, as my new role probably wont start for at least a week yet, but i thought a couple of days ago 'hey, why not lodge a jobseeker claim, just for the hell of it'
I may not be eligible for TUPE (in some folks opinion), but i AM eligible for JSA, although i may run that past the primes in my CPA just to make sure they have no objection
So i did, and today i sat on the opposite side of the desk being asked questions by a lovely lady who was taken aback when i told her i am ex DWP, apparently i am the first one she has seen in there yet, but the small town office is bracing itself for many more once the fighting starts proper...Every person in the office are themselves on 30 days notice, and nobody seems to know whats going on as they are being drip fed information (sounds familiar)
I walked away from the interview with my little jobseeker card, and no, i didnt get a plastic wallet to put it in, as the lady said we don't give those anymore due to DWP cutbacks....
And yes, it was hammering down with rain outside.
Why am i posting this on this particular thread ? Because the second interesting thing is that i had a chat with a very nice man from the very pinnacle of the ivory tower to which this thread is dedicated, and surprisingly he seems like quite a nice chap...
Although his opinions on TUPE are still wrong...,in my humble opinion, although i'm sure my brief will find it an interesting bedtime read.
Never the twain shall meet i guess
I guess then the rumour I heard today is just that! only a rumour :(. I was told that late yesterday G4S and their subs got their a@ses kicked by DWP and told that they will TUPE. Apparently G4S were told that it was their responsibility to TUPE down to subs. Obviously a rumour or a dream.
@Anonymous...who exactly did you meet and where? i am confused? did you meet the md of g4s who has been mentioned on here before? how come you ended up meeting him?
@Stan...i think that is wishful thinking for us! Where did that rumour come from?
@Mr Glide - I think it was more than a rumour, as i heard the same thing last night through my own channels, and i must be at least 200 miles away from your CPA, unless we have started to have the same dreams (maybe we are just spending too much time on Indus Delta)...I heard the whupping came from DWP crystal tower....,
@Mr.Windy - 'Mr V' (i must be really careful here)...., a substantial way higher up in the Ivory tower than the orc with the tail.
Rumour has it he's the chap that controls the big eye that looks out over Mordor
@ windy. Sorry its a long story but this is it . . . . We have three new primes in our CPA. 2 of them have accepted that TUPE applies. The third G*S has turned their back on it. In our centre there were 4 staff delivering ND. I was TUPED last Wednesday along with 2 of my three colleagues. (keep up LOL). When I asked the HR manager of my new employer why they didn't take all 4 of us I was told they took everyone in the town on the list. (there is more LOL). I messaged my ex director to ask them to look into the missing member of our team not being on the list. (along with other staff from other centres in the CPA) This is where it becomes rumour because I don't work there anymore. The 'missing' member of staff told me that everything was going to be ok because G*S had there ankles kicked yesterday from DWP with regard to TUPE. I said G*S don't need to TUPE because they aren't delivering (based on discussions I have observed on here). But I was told that (and this is where the rumour kicks in) G*S were instructed that TUPE applies to FND and ND and that it was their responsibility to pass this TUPE to there sub-contractors. One such contractor in particular was identified as delivering in 'our' town. (I said it was a long story).
Some of the above is fact (I know because I am living it) some of it is hearsay (and wouldn't stand up in court LOL). Which is why I have labelled it as rumour. But it is hope at least.
I thought A****a, and S****c were turning their backs up in that CPA too ? They are with some contracts, i have a friend up there who tells me that some FND, and ND contracts are ok (although sporadic where transfers are happening), but others such as P*******2***k amongst others, have already bitten the dust due to eligibility denial by all 3 primes.
From what i gather, in your CPA all 3 primes are outwardly in competition, but as soon as they clock off they all go back to the same shared flat, take turns with laundry duties, and label their own food in the fridge.
On a different note, i think i need a computer repair, as i seem to have worn out my * key.
No the other 2 are TUPEing from New Deal and FND. I know because I have been TUPEd (from new deal) and at my induction there were FND staff.
Yep, thats what i meant, the ND & FND staff seem to be transferring, proving that two out of the 3 primes (not G*S) consider those programmes to be in scope for transfer, although other programmes in the area who aren't ND & FND have felt the door firmly slam in their face from all 3, and as a result at least one sub contractor has cut their entire advisory staff across the region, those staff are now unemployed.
And, before i hear anymore of the 'not enough jobs in the industry' wibble, my own specialist provision was the only specialist provision of that type in the CPA.
No WP supply chain stand ins are coming to the rescue.
The 'need' still exists, therefore having someone to address the 'need' is necessary, as the work programme in that CPA has ZERO provision for it now, and nobody to step in.
I now work for a specialist employment agency who have no part whatsoever in the work programme
They have identified that as the WP prime have destroyed their only supplier of that service, it has left a huge regional hole in the market for that service.
Therefore they have stepped in to address the demand, at an inflated price by employing all of the redundant ex subby employees to perform the service for them. (even i wasn't quick enough to figure out what was happening at first, had i realised, i would have employed them myself, i could have cleaned up)
Prime has egg on face, and a huge gap in its supply chain, subby has a contract with the prime, but no employees, and no money coming in to get new employees.
The ex employees continue to address the need on increased wages for non WP agency.
Everyones a winner so they say
But as for 'not enough jobs', as long as there is need, there is a job to address that need.
Imagine if this was the social care sector...,just because the provider dies what do you do ? Put the old people in cold storage ?
Im sure that by christmas someone at JCP in the CPA will be accidentally killed by the weight of the falling tower of referrals that have built up because there is nowhere to refer to for that type of supply provision.
Only then will DWP brain stems start to fire, and realise something has gone wrong
I'm sure only at that point will grayling stop filling his day throwing waste paper balls across his office into his waste bin, and realise something is wrong.
No doubt he will come up with some half baked 'blame it on the previous government' excuse
Anonymous, not sure whether or not you have seen the tv much over the past 12 mnths but there are lots if things that have a "need" but unfortunately the country is a little strapped for cash so those "needs" are falling by the wayside....you used an old people example - classic, have you not heard that most of the uk councils are reducing their adult care budgets and that support in that area is being massively reduced? this theory that "if there is a need" really is irrelevant. It's about whether there is the money to support that need and although i dont agree with it, that is the world we live in so i dont think the government are going to be splashing anymore cash in relation to what we all do. They'll sit it out to see if their promised longterm benefits of sustained employment will work. Hope for all our sakes it does...maybe then those adult care budgets might get a boost.
Point is that the WP supply chains are designed to cope with all needs and attempt to get these folks sorted out and into work....,that is the point of the work programme.
So if a heroin addict walks into JCP to sign on, are you going to tell him that you are a bit strapped for cash and cant refer him for detox, cos the provider has gone belly up, but if he sits on the doorstep of JCP and has a seizure you can get a job outcome by creating a role for someone else who will come and sweep up his carcass...
The more carcasses, the more sweepers, and more job outcomes
grayling will be so proud, i'm sure he may even create a 'future carcass fund', 2 years sustained employment for everyone to sweep carcasses.
Save taxpayer money, sort out the drug problem, create jobs, and make money on outcomes....
Needs don't disappear because supply chains collapse, or work programmes are 'streamlined' to cut cost.
Your example is simplistic and doesnt prove your point in the slightest, just over dramatise in the way that is consistent through your posts. u try and detract from the subject by highlighting possible failures of the work programme when infact those areas are the responsibility of different agencies....the work programme is supposed to be about job outcomes but doesnt mean providers have to pay for all barriers that thise customers might face. Did you not see the bidding docs where organisations needed to demonstrate how theyd link into partner and support organisations and link into mainstream where nevessary? the work programme is designed to identify barriers and ensure they are overcome but not for subs to suddenly fund absolutely everything themselves. If u think that suddenly work programme is to replace all agencies in realtion to mental health, drug and alcohol, housing etc etc then i think you have totally misunderstood the concept. But i dont think that is the case. I think you are attempting to be controversial, simplistic in your examples in an effort to shock and arguementative and bitter. Lots of people have the reason to be bitter, but lets keep it ij context.
@ Windy and all. I have read, with interest, all comments posted. yes I agree with some, but must admit, dissagree with most.Work Programme has far bigger immplications than just "direct Tupe staff" as a lot of the comments mention, outcome payments for the WP will not justify themselves for a minimum of 12 months (and then only if performance is achieved,) this being said, I feel that the real immplications of this "new world" of Welfare to Work will not be seen for several months, with regards to redundancy etc. Unfortunately, there is aprox 1 third too many people on the Tupe lists than will be required to deliver WP, due to the suggested flow through numbers presently presented by DWP. We must also remember, as well as the "eligable direct Tupe staff" being concerned (and rightly so) there are many hundreds of staff also affected by the WP in-directly. Organisations that are subbies to the Prime's MUST make way for their intake of Tupe staff, making their exsisting employees redundant (this has, and is already happening) with winning Primes of WP and their supply chains, including Board of Director level. Our sector is most definately changing, and will be challenging to say the least. Good luck to ALL involved directly and in-directly.
Let's have a bit of a reality check shall we?
Will the Work Programme offer the 'individually tailored support' to 'address specific barriers' to employment?
Of course not!
As a Manager, it is my responsibility to ensure that the organisation I work for makes a profit. If it does not, I risk my job and the jobs of my staff.
The only way to make a profit on WP is to get people into work as quickly as possible and to keep them there.
So, if I need to hit a job outcome target of, lets say 50%, I would be expecting staff to assess customers and to decide (out of every 10) which 5 are the easiest to get into work. From an operational point of view, why worry about the other 5??
I'm not saying that i'm happy with doing business this way. In fact, I first joined this industry all those years ago to try and help as many people as possible to improve their lives. But the sad fact is that WP will be THE most target driven programme I have ever managed.
Doing 'more with less' will become usual practise within our industry.
@ Voice of Reason: I had to read your comment twice, to actually understand and believe what I was reading was coming from a Manager of I presume a Work Programme? I agree 100%, that 1 aspect of your role within your organisation is to "make profit" I would also have assumed that, within your remmit, you are to offer ALL customers the same level of service?? not just the 50% you refer to as your quick outcomes, and then decide to "park" the more harder to help!! Through all of the comments listed, Mr Grayling is deemed to be the instigator of WP. Let's not forget, this is the brainchild of Lord Freud, NOT Grayling.
Yes, "doing more with less" is and will become usual practice, as a lot of the successful Primes, submitted ITT's with large discounts that in some cases, outweighed the oponents quality ITT's, which is now leading us down this rocky path. Lord freud's model, is helping ALL customers, NOT just those nearer the employment market, and as your organisation needs the higher finances related to the hardest to help within WP, I suggest that you DO worry about the other 5, and as a manager, instill this into your team/s. You have however given me food for thought, that I speak with all my manager's and ensure they do NOT have the same mind set as your good self, as it's the "other 5 that will ensure my organisation is successful, securing the jobs of my staff, managers etc, and ensuring we deliver our service to ALL of our future customers, in line with Lord Freud's concept. ,
@ voice of reason. Working like that will get you the sack. The 5 you parked up are likely to earn your company income from week 13. The 5 you helped most likely won't general any income for 26 weeks.
The parked customers will also generate a much greater income.
The whole point of the payment model is better returns for those hardest to help.
If you really want to impress your boss find the other 5 some work
@ maketherightchoice: I would love to think that EVERY customer on WP will be given the same level of service. Experience of New Deal and FND however, tells me that there will be a good many individuals on WP who don't actually want to work. Whilst I would love to dedicate the time and effort of staff to challenging their mindset, I am concerned that with each member of staff having a caseload of 120+ and being targeted to get a minimum of 20 job outcomes per month, that there simply will not be the resources to help everyone AND still hit targets.
In terms of the 'hardest to help', perhaps I should have been clearer. Of course I expect my teams to work with customers to overcome barriers which require more specialist support (disability, addiction, basic skills needs to name but a few). These issues should be addressed over a longer term and with the help of specialist partners where appropriate (and available!)
However, I would be disappointed to see lots of time and energy being taken up chasing those who simply do not want to work, when their time would be better spent helping those who do (and therefore hitting outcome targets)
@ Voice of Reason: Again, I agree with 40% of your comments, and still I am dissapointed to read your "none commitment attitude" of "lots of time and energy being used on customers that simply do not want to work". With the commencement of the new "universal credit" will come drastic changes to sanctions. making it far more difficult for customers "that don't wish to secure paid employment" to stay in receipt of benefits. We are in a changing world, and gone are the day's of Employment Zone, FND, etc, and managers need to adopt new skill sets, to fall in-line with "our new world". caseload sizes have always been big, organisations under staffed, large targets to hit etc. It's now about empowering our customers to do more, and giving them the skills to enable them to do this, it's not about 1-1 interviews for an hour every 2 weeks. Organisations now have 2 years with customers to allow for different approaches, beceause as we know, DWP require and want higher performance than has been achived previuosly, from any programme. It may be an idea to think "how" you instill a new different mindset into your teams to ensure your "hardest to help" are not "parked" or unfortunately you may find yourself in a position like the 10,000 unfortunate people now being made redundant, as your organisation needs your "hardest to help" to find sustainable employment, as this is the only way your organisation will also sustain !! ,
@ voice of reason. I understand what you are getting at. Having worked on New Deal even the good customers identify the sort of person that cannot be a***d to work. The solution has already been put into place I believe. You would refer the lazy so and so back to JCP. They will then instigate the Mandatory Work Activity with its threat of sanction.
I assume you then get Mr Lazy back with another attachment payment. In addition he will have a 'refocus of his work ethic'. I suppose you repeat this process ad infinitum.
Not quite Stan. WP clients aren't eligible for WP, although the provider could instruct them to attend a similar service as part of WP (but delivered themselves with no extra funding attached). Failure to participate can then lead to the same sanctions that MWA carries.
@voice of unreason
Park & cream was the worst fear of the programme
Seems that managers are already planning just that tactic in advance,and quite a few people predicted you would play it that way months ago, probably before even you knew what you would do
but will the managers that park and cream still be managers once the round of redundany is complete?
Logic says that people who are easier to place into employment are going to be the first to go over the top. Of course providers are going to focus on the quick wins that these customers provide - they'd be daft not to, and anyone who thought differently is living in a different world! The money may take longer to come through but it will need less intensive support to achieve.
However, providers have longer to work with an individual on the WP and the rush to get outcomes in 13 weeks is over. Rather than being parked the harder to help can now just move to the slow lane, go at a steady pace and eventually move into the fast lane. Everyone's a winner (if the jobs are actually there). The quick wins are still quick wins though.
I think the targets for managers are likely to be more financial than % outcome based, which will lead to a change in focus. You may need to place 70% of the easier to help into work to gain the same funding as 40% of a mix of easier/harder to help. So going back to logic it would be daft to focus everything on the easier group as it wouldn't be more work and less financially beneficial. The managers who make a profit will be the ones who last!
I like the motorway lane analogy. Just hope it doesn't get foggy or icy. Otherwise the WP will be heading for a multiple customer pile up (which some people thinks its heading for anyway)
From other threads you will already see we have crash victims and there is even the obligatory ambulance chaser. I think someone called him Jeremy Kyle. (GK you know who you are)
The managers who make a profit will run out of people to make an easy profit from
then what will they do ?
Then the morally bankrupt will find themselves on the other side of the JCP desk,as they lack the intelligence, suitable networks, or supply chains to continue making a profit.
Then THEY will be the specialist provision customers
This thread shows the difference in what drives people working in the sector. On the whole front line staff are there to make a difference, help everyone they can as much as they can, and aren't particularly interested in the finances. You then have the companies who are (shock horror) there to make a profit. Even third sector organisations want to make a profit from the contract - the only difference is what they do with the profit. Managers inhabit the gloomy space called the in-between! They have to turn a profit otherwise they will be out on their ear so they have the difficult job of balancing the front line philosophy with the back room hard nosed business philosophy. They will obviously want to make the "easy" profit (why on earth wouldn't they), but that won't be enough so they'll have to make the long-term profit as well to keep the back room happy.
And who started the term "park and cream" anyway? It's horrid! The words don't go together in any context. I get park and ride, ice and cream, park and fly, stop and go, abandon and protect. Can we please come up with something better than park and cream?! In fact - new thread coming up!
LOL I used it but didn't introduce it. I think one of the anonymouses did. But there is a link. Ever had ice cream at the park. Haha sorry for lightening things but it is the weekend. Off to the park with the kids and might even buy them an ice cream :)
Well, i was originally thinking of 'cream and poo'
Skim the cream off the top, kick the poo into the corner
Y'see the park and cream philosophy dictates that the parked are just left there until they become more valuable later down the line.
That is purposely keeping people ON benefits
Only a tory government (and their pet dachshunds) could envisage a system that is intended to get people back into work by making a profit out of keeping folks on the dole.
Proves how out of touch cameron is, (and how well fed and sleepy his dachshund is). this is thatcherism in its blackest, purest form, and just as viable a political philosophy as BNP...
We will all be on rations of soylent green before long.......(probably coinciding with a rapid decline in those long term benefits claimants)
I can't see anyone wanting to employ me, 28 years out of the job market due to been a carer and also disabled, now in debt facing bankrupy and loss of house due to long term illness, going weeks when i don't go beyond the house or bother dressing due to pain and tirdness and depression, and if i do go out its sometimes in pyjamas to the shops with coat over the top, on my stick or crutches, and in agony and very tired.
at the moment its a case of if i cut a bit of my hedge, i have to go to bed for 3 hours to rest, then do a bit more, who on earth is going to give me a job with chronic pain, anxiety, social phobia, oedema, arthritis, vertigo, nausia and tirdness
answers on a post card
Not wishing to sound harsh unsung swansong but I can't see anyone wanting to employ you with that mindset! It's clear that you are in a deep spiral of negative thinking and not in the right mental state to apply for work let alone be successful, so I do hope you're on an appropriate benefit and not JSA! You clearly need support at a mental, emotional, health level before you even start with the work focus. You seem to see work as something which would have a positive impact on your life, which is a good attitude, but maybe you're focusing far too much on the fact you aren't in a position to work at the moment, which could be making you worse.
Theoretically the Work Programme should provide you with the tailored support which will gradually help you get your life back on a more positive upward trend with a proper staged and targeted plan looking at all areas of your life. Will any WP provider REALLY deliver such a service? Probably not.
But on a positive note - if you need your hedge cutting then the MWA providers may be able to send someone round!!! :)
If you think you have not been treated fairly then of course you have the right to file with the Employment Tribunal. The website www.tribunalwizard.com can help you walk thru the problem. No win no fee company and a class action is always fair game!
It sounds to me like many of you are not having your rights being looked after!!!! Instead of getting upset with each other you need to help each other.