Submitted by Megan Williams (not verified) on Mon, 02/11/2009 - 1:32pm.
Given that Contract Provider Staff are effectively at an identical (if not lower) level of competence as Administrative Officers within Job Centre Plus, I trust that those staff who are made redundant will find that Junior Graded Admin Officers within Job Centre Plus will assist them in finding new employment.
Despite the current economic downturn, the Call Centre Sector is still a vibrant sector, and I am sure that Contract Provider Staff, once made redundant, wont find it too challenging to undergo a period of retraining before entering a Call Centre. The Government is still helping people with costs, and staff will find it fairly straightforward to apply for Career Development Loans to cover the cost of training.
So far, staff have been TUPE'd across from existing providers to new ones. It seems likely that this practice will continue unless someone challenges it in court.
Submitted by Gerry Attric (not verified) on Tue, 03/11/2009 - 6:57pm.
If they have been working for the provider continuously for 2 years + they should get redundancy pay, so they might not have to apply for a career development loan or at least, if they do, for a smaller one.
Here's what Shaw Trust said about TUPE as it applies to Workstep / Work Choice in their recent submission to the Select Committee's review of contracting:
3.6.1 TUPE
3.6.1.1 A major contract management issue is emerging on the transition between the Workstep and Work Choice programmes with regards to TUPE. Data provided by DWP shows that 37 per cent of programme administrators and 58 per cent of participants are on public sector terms and conditions (mainly with local authorities), which are typically more generous than those offered in the private or third sectors.
3.6.1.2 Where TUPE applies, the Trust would be required to provide equivalent terms and conditions to the transferring staff and participants. This would include meeting:
- any salary shortfall (likely to be small),
- pension contributions (likely to be high in the case of participants transferring from the public sector),
- any pension fund shortfall, and
- redundancy costs in the event that a person's job becomes redundant.
3.6.1.3 Two tier work force principles would also apply, whereby new entrants to jobs that transferred under TUPE would receive the equivalent of the new terms and conditions.
3.6.1.4 It is likely that this level of cost and liability will make some of the Work Choice bids unviable. On this basis, DWP should be asked to underwrite any legal costs associated with a challenge around the status of Group 3b and the additional costs and liabilities affecting Group 3b in the event that TUPE is deemed to apply.
3.6.1.5 We are concerned about the lack of direction that DWP gives within its Invitations to Tender around whether TUPE applies. We have seen evidence that other government departments are more directive about the application of TUPE. We are, at present, particularly concerned about the lack of either direction or provision that DWP is giving in relation to transfer of undertakings for several hundred severely disabled Workstep clients. These people are employed directly by current Workstep contract holders and whose employment is hosted by other companies. We believe DWP should be pro-active in protecting the employment rights of these people, providing funds to cover this if TUPE obligation renders the new contracts unviable.
Submitted by twofirstnames on Fri, 06/11/2009 - 8:46pm.
My 'Old' Company held a three stage TUPE consultation process with certain 'conditions' being mentioned that would be carried over. My 'New' Company is blissfully unaware of most of these. The main bugbear being the significant loss in earnings. (No target related job entry / sustainment bonus in the New Company). Also my base has changed and I was informed that I would be awarded a 'travel allowance' for the difference in miles to the new base. I live and work in Wales. My Old Company was on the tele not long ago. I've found myself on an emergency tax code (New Company blames Old Company for delays in release of rel' docs) Any one else finding that TUPE has had it's niggles?
Submitted by a noddy mouse (not verified) on Tue, 10/11/2009 - 12:11pm.
I think you are being quite polite to describe the process as having "niggles". We were assured we were to be found a job as close as possible to our previous role, mine could not be more different if they had tried. My strengths and skills are not being used and even worse I am excess to requirements and some poeple face loosing their jobs because of my placement here. When I asked about other options I was informed it was "this or the dole"!
Submitted by Jack Jones (not verified) on Thu, 19/11/2009 - 1:34pm.
I notice that Peopleserve (Biscom) have not advertised on this site or their website for Sub-contractors/partners to help them in their delivery of FND if they're sucessful with their bid. Given the deadline of 7th Jan for the ITT to be in, aren't they leaving it a bit late in the day?
Submitted by mad mick (not verified) on Thu, 26/11/2009 - 4:47pm.
In response to Jack Jones re Biscom. I have been looking on their website too and boy is it confusing. Firstly, don't visit the Biscom website as it was designed when the web was in its infancy by schoolkids as a homework project. The PeopleServe website lists out of date contracts in FND1 areas and looks like it gets updated by Rescare as there's a lot of links back to their USA operations. They even spell the american way for gods sake! Please do something about it. Very strange though how there isn't anything about partnership opportunities for phase 2. Are they really arrogant enough to believe they can go it alone? I notice they got into bed with Serco in Phase 1 (I wonder how that partnership came about), then all of a sudden they are shortlisted in phase 2, in their own right. Srange, very strange, wierd, unusual, hmm, something a wee bit stinky this way comes! I wonder what you make of it Daniel, do you have any views? Maybe this is the reason they have changed their Head Honchos more times than i've changed my underpants this week.
Ps. very few postings over the past week everybody must be knee deep in swapping emails in preparation for the ITT.
Submitted by mad mick (not verified) on Thu, 26/11/2009 - 5:01pm.
Oh really, and where was this partnership opportunity advertised for all to see and respond to? Certainly not on this website and definitely not on their website, unless you mean the pathetic half-arsed attempt of one with an email address and no other detail. If it is out there somewhere i.e. their delivery model, then it's jolly well hidden. As regards to the 'several weeks ago' deadline, good luck to them!!!
Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 27/11/2009 - 2:44pm.
So it was only available to those who paid the extortionate cost of Jim Carleys tender tracker then?
Thats nice and inclusive to those thousands of potential providers who get this info for free elsewhere and who dont have the cost and capacity to pay for it.
What happens if they want to dseliver almost entirely on their own, with no subs, link Working Links?
Submitted by Double DEE DEE on Fri, 19/03/2010 - 11:23pm.
CAN I JUST ASK HAS ANYONE EXPERIENCED THE FACT THAT STAFF DONT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ANY OF THE PROGRAMMES - WHY - COS THEY KEEP THEIR JOBS THRU TUPE - I DONT PERFORM, MY CONTRACT GETS TERMINATED AND GUESS WHAT ................I TRANSFER TO NEW PROVIDER AND STILL DONT GIVE A DAMN COS MY LENGTH OF SERVICE CONTINUES, PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT - WHAT THE HECK, NOT BOTHERED, CONTRACT IS TRANSFERRED AND I MOVE THRU TUPE TO NEW EMPLOYER, GIVE IT ANOTHER 12 MONTHS, CONTRACT IS TERMINATED, I MOVE AGAIN TO NEW CONTRACTOR ....IT GOES ON AND ON AND ON AND ON........................................CAPABILITY AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT IS IRRELEVANT, TELL THAT TO THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
Submitted by Voice of WP on Sat, 20/03/2010 - 11:05am.
Double DEE DEE - what a shameful confession, if you "do not give a damn" why do you stay within the industry, go and get another job where your clear contempt does not affect peoples lives. It is people like you who give W2W a bad name. If you worked for me you would not last till the contract got terminated you would be out the door long before that.
I find it galling that you are prepared to accept a salary when you clearly do not put in the required effort, I just hope you do get fired and end up at a Tribunal - believe me you won't have a leg to stand on with a decent employer with robust HR procedures - been there, seen it, done it.
Submitted by Double DEE DEE on Wed, 24/03/2010 - 7:01pm.
Boy Racer - I was not referring to myself - it was an analogy of what I see/hear with some of my colleagues - although NOT ALL staff, some I have spoken to feel that way I described in my 1st posting - I dont feel that way and work very hard alongside a lot of others in the industry - i am committed and passionate about my job and love working with my clients to get them the outcome they need to move forward in life.
I think what I am trying to say is that there appears in some cases to be complacency and a reduced desire to achieve the programme objectives............does that make sense???
Submitted by starlite31 on Thu, 17/02/2011 - 11:37am.
Hi, I've just had a meeting with the new providers who haven't confirmed that i will be TUPED even thou i qualify. They have also informed me that I WILL be transferred over on my original contract. I was to understand that i wud b given the choice? Can any1 tell me if i'm correct? I find it difficult to make an informed decision on the new provider wen they r giving no information about their Contracts which i wud b expected 2 change 2 after joining them?
Submitted by Lazarus on Thu, 17/02/2011 - 12:07pm.
starlite31 - are you talking about new Work Programme providers? If so no one has been awarded the contracts yet so no one is going to agree to TUPE anyone over at this stage. You're going to have to be patient (easy for me to say I know). Staff are usually TUPE'd across on their original contracts as that's the point of TUPE eg you aren't worse off if the new employer's conditions aren't as good as your existing ones. You can only assume that your existing terms and conditions will continue. But providers aren't going to give you contractual information until they have been awarded the contract.
If you aren't talking about the Work Programme and the providers have been awarded contracts then they should give you full details about their offer to enable you to make an informed decision.
Submitted by starlite31 on Thu, 17/02/2011 - 12:18pm.
Lazarus - Thank u 4 ur response. No i'm not talking about the new Work Programme. Soz, I should have made that clear. I work as a front line Mental Health Support worker & the new providers have been confirmed. Completion of take over is 7th March 11.I have very little knowledge on TUPE particularly as this date is almost upon us. They have refused 2 give any information on their contracts?
Ah ha! Assuming from your previous post you are being transferred over to the new provider with your existing terms and conditions then there won't be a new contract as such. Your new employer won't just be able to force a new contract on you and won't usually get away with making changes to contracts that are detrimental to you even after you've joined them. That's the protection offered by TUPE.
There are lots of requirements placed on the old and new employers in these situations, a major one being consultation and information sharing! It doesn't seem like you're aware of any consultation. Your current employer should be able to advise you about the processes, what information they've passed on, how it is affecting you etc. If you can't get any information from them I'd advise you to ring ACAS where you can have a proper conversation with an expert so you can better explain your position. It will be much more help than this forum as it's a complex issue.
dwp states the JCP delivery after Pathways ends in April 'a new initiative and very different in nature to Pathways.
JCP staff front line and management whom I have spoken with are unaware of any additional footfall and although we realise that these Pathways clients would not be mandated to interviews, should they have needs in this interim period it is unclear what would be available eg help with applications and money for interview clothing? The DWP site does not state what this support for ESA claimants will be.
My question is who will these clients turn to? I have increasing numbers of clients reading things in the press about the changes,however am unable to give reassurance as to what this 'new initiative' will look like.
If DWP are clear on what it will cover then maybe they could advise the Pathway providers to ensure that these people can be given some reassurance. Also would help the 100's of advisers who are in the process of being made redundant why they are not to be TUPE'd to JCP and then to the Work Program.
Call me cynical but I think that this is the new coalition government cutting too close to the bone and therefore the providers would look to cut the salary bandings of roles on the work program, obviously something that they could not do if we were all TUPE'd.
A lot of your cynicism is justified purely because the hard evidence stands in your favour. For example, a recent advert for a "consultant" specialising in career advice was offering £18,774 - £24,000. Compare this with salaries outside the sector for the same role and they offer £24 - £27,000 (and can even rise to £30,000+). As for caseworkers outside the field? Well the lowest salries average £21,000, but on average range between £24,000 and £30,000.
So why are the monkeys being paid peanuts? Well there are several reasons.
1. Caseworkers, career guidance advisers and trainers outside this sector have tended towards formalising a defined set of qualifications to work in the field. More importantly, they require ongoing CPD to stay in the job.
2. The workers in other fields are often required to become members of a professional body that governs and advises on best practice in the field.
3. In addition, many of the workers mentioned previously have chosen to join a trade union. Despite Unison opening its door and creating a section for private sector welfare to work staff, the response has been limited.
4. There is a general openness in other sectors about salary scales. Not all firms/ organisations necessarily pay the same rate, but candidates are usually fully aware of where their potential pay scale sits compared to other organisations.
5. Though their contracts aren't necessarily 'permanent' (though some are), most have a career expectancy that allows them to settle with organisations for some years. Indeed, it is not uncommon to come across social welfare staff who have been with the same organisation for 10, 15 or 20+ years.
In short, until staff in the sector become angry enough to want things to be different you can expect more of the same. A lot of people I have spoken to have said they feel there is currently much wrong with the sector - my response is simple - its not enough to want to change, its not enough to need to change ... in order to change, you must experience change.
"A recent advert for...."? You base your whole post on THAT? My God, you've spouted some rubbish on here in recent weeks, but that's got to go straight in at Number One!
OK, so you disagree - though I think most would agree the hostility was a little uncalled for. But would you care to offer a counter-argument rather than flame?
You're missing the point my friend. I can't offer you a counter because, like you, I don't have sufficient data to establish an average.
You have compared what appear to be norms for other sectors to a single, bad example in ours. That's like putting Which? magazine's reviews of the iPhone up against a single user's experience of a duff Blackberry! Forget comparing apples to pears, you're comparing apples to a single pear's dodgy pips!
So instead of making sweeping generalizations, go dig out some data.. Recruitment agencies are a good port of call.
And hostility? Not at all, just amazement at the sheer conviction that you seem to have of your opinions. There's certainly a pattern to your posts, largely along the lines of "I think, therefore it is".
Submitted by Tacitus on Fri, 25/02/2011 - 12:57am.
Firstly, the "generalisations" you accuse me of are actual figures, whereas you offer no counter argument beyond rhetoric. Therefore, I would argue that until proven otherwise, my argument stands. The reality is that many in the sector do receive low pay - a possible result of lack of formal professional standards and any formal professional body to monitor and uphold them.
Secondly, I am left wondering why you are so defensive of the lack of any salary structure within the sector. Surely it is in the best interests of staff, providers and the clients they serve to ensure staff do not receive (to quote another posting) "peanuts".
Finally, you are correct in your last assumption. Yes I have a complete belief in my convictions and I make no apology for being an idealist. However, I would like to believe I am not a bigot and, as such, I am open to alternate arguments - where they offer strength and accuracy. As yet, I have yet to see any counterargument that has forced me to reconsider my opinion.
In an earlier posting I outlined 5 reasons why the "monkeys were being paid peanuts". I see no reason to review my analysis. What concerns me is the strength of argument some have offered against my calls for professionalisation - to me that is most worrying.
Defensive? Moi? I have no reason to be (I'm not one of those big, nasty employers that you've vented your spleen about, just a worker in the sector), but stop presenting shallow research as fact. I'll say again - there is no counter argument as neither you nor I have sufficient factual evidence to make a valid point.
To reiterate, I am not taking any stance in defense of the sector, merely pointing out that you are quoting "facts" that are anything but. Comparing one poorly paying provider to the average in other sectors is the type of spin I expect from politicians, not intelligent people (hee hee!). Do your research, gather enough data to be able to establish a true norm in our sector, then post your findings. You'll hear no argument from me if they indicate that this sector underpays.
And finally, a little story.
A group of scientists is performing a series of experiments on a spider. They cut one leg off the spider and tell it to crawl. The spider crawls.
Next they cut a second leg off the spider. "Crawl!" they command. The spider crawls.
They cut off a third leg. "Crawl!" The spider crawls.
They continue cutting the legs off the spider one at a time and commanding it to crawl. Each time, with one leg less, the poor spider crawls.
Finally, they cut the eighth leg off the spider and tell it to crawl. The spider does not respond. Then one scientist says to the other, "Make a note, when we cut off the eighth leg, the spider became deaf.".
It's so easy to take a fact and make a judgement. Validating it is another matter entirely.
Submitted by Tacitus on Fri, 25/02/2011 - 12:02pm.
I confess to some surprise that you are so defensive of salaries employers pay frontline staff. My experience in many sectors, including welfare to work is that ordinarily personnel tend to look at their income and feel that generally they should be entitled to more. The fact you seem content with 'your lot' reflects well on your employer, but does not necessarily demosntrate a generic trend within the sector. In the examples I gave I offered demonstrations of inequalities - please note, I never referred to it as 'research' merely as an example of discrepancies between this and other sectors. Now, if you can show me caseworkers earning over £30,000 in this sector then I would be most interested in your examples.
I appreciate your lesson in research methods but feel sufficiently confident that I already understand the basics of extrapolating ahypothesis and turniung it into a theory. Whilst amusing it did little to add to our discussion.
perhaps more importantly we should be talking about the current reticence of the profession to move forward and professionalise itself. It is in this area it is sadly lacking and needs to bring itself into the twenty-first century.
Submitted by Lazarus on Fri, 25/02/2011 - 12:46pm.
For too long there have been a number of people working in the sector who are poorly trained, unqualified and who provide a substandard service. Many staff fit into the first two categories and a few (even those that are "qualified") fit into the latter.
I'm not sure if "professionalising the industry" which is the latest trendy band-wagon, is going to result in what we need. It's really helpful to establish some recognised routes and training, and on the job training is a vital aspect of any successful sector. However, look at what "professionalisation" has done for nursing. We now have nurses with degrees (whooppee), but has the standard of patient care increased? All research (and I'm not going to quote the source Dante!) suggests it has done little to improve the service received by patients.
There are a huge amount of people who provide an excellent service in our sector, who have never been trained and don't hold formal qualifications. If we force people down the professional route we could shut the door to some fantastic people. So maybe before organisations (who shall remain anonymous) keep themselves in business by leading and creating this professional route with the great and good deciding what should happen to the rest of us, maybe we should all look at what we want, what we really mean by professionalising the industry, and what is the best way to achieve the required result.
I see a number of adverts now for the sector which, particularly for managers, require "a degree". Well that counts me out - puts me firmly in my place doesn't it! So be careful what you ask for ... you might just get it! :)
Yes, but does this effectively result in an actual salary in excess of £30K once you remove the London weighting? This isn't a comment, it is a question. If it does, then it sends a very clear message across the field of a broad standard that needs to be achieved for advisors nationally.
Submitted by Tacitus on Sat, 12/03/2011 - 11:53pm.
Reliable sources inform me Pathways front line staff (roughly 460) currently working for a major provider have formally been given their 90 days redundancy notice from the 21st of March. Legal issues prevent me from naming the company, but those interested can work it out if I say their name consists of 3 letters/ numbers. A real tragedy and coming at a time when the entire sector is looking very shaky.
A more detailed report will appear in my blog on Monday.
to all the a4e staff that got there notice last week dont worry! go to the job center speak to them there are lots of courses for you to go on! there is plenty of help out there..
this is a worrying time, I work for a provider and over 200 of us have just been given redundancy notice. Will there be anyone left to give the training, confidence and motivation to our customers and get them back into work. I fear for the future unless the funding agencies get their fingers out and confirm new contracts for providers.
it seems providers are on the one hand trying to tell their key staff not to worry whilst at the same time handing out redundancy notices. Inevitably this will lead to severe haemmoraghing within thes ector as people are forced to leave and look for alternate employment.
If it continues it begs the question about what kind of standard of delivery will providers be able to provide if their key staff have gone.
Submitted by Fred Kite on Mon, 14/03/2011 - 4:27pm.
Lady P, What training?
Submitted by lady P on Sun, 13/03/2011 - 4:26pm.
this is a worrying time, I work for a provider and over 200 of us have just been given redundancy notice. Will there be anyone left to give the training, confidence and motivation to our customers and get them back into work. I fear for the future unless the funding agencies get their fingers out and confirm new contracts for providers.
Submitted by Saintly Sin on Tue, 22/03/2011 - 11:50am.
For a start, I think people need to stop bitching at each other and realise that we are all in the same boat. As for those talking about "poorly qualified, untraied staff" PLEASE get a grip. Qualifications do not make the advisor. My qualifications are in very different things but this does not make me a bad advisor. I work very hard and have recieved good in house training on my position. I think it is important for advisors, consultants etc to understand how it feels to be out of work and in a bad situation. The best advisors I know have had to go through periods of unemployment/W2W help before getting back into work. This gives the advisors the drive and enthusiasm to give the help that is so desperately needed.
It is attitudes like that, that give W2W a bad name and make people not want the help that we can offer.
Submitted by Tacitus on Tue, 22/03/2011 - 12:30pm.
Saintly makes an interesting point. Within the sector there are many professional working at the sharp end with a broad range of qualifications, many of which are totally unrelated to their daily activity. This does not, of itself make for bad professional/ client interaction. Indeed, many of these relationships have as their foundation a deep empathy for their client and an over-riding ambition to help them achieve their goals and aspirations. In this respect, frontline staff, operating within a broadly-based Rogerian/ person-centred approach (with perhaps a little behavioural or cognitive behavioural twiddly bits on the end) should be welcomed. The fact these professionals do not have a qualification does not particularly disturb me, where in-house training has been of a high standard and quality assurance and client engagement facilitate ongoing change and staff development.
However, in an ever changing world, I think it time we sought to formalise our profession and give frontline staff the credibility they deserve. Fred Kite's comments may offend some, but I have seen some staff who should not work with a sick parrot, much less vulnerable human beings. Equally, there are some staff out there who are achieving things that quite honestly makes my jaw drop in awe and admiration when I see them work. It is time we recognised this talent and rewarded it accordingly with licensing of practitioners.
Fred, I wrote that a month ago and if I am completely honest I cannot fully recall my line of thought at the time. Indeed, these days I find it difficult to recall what i ate in my sandwich and that was only an hour ago!
Reading back through the thread I think I might have been referring to your suggestion that little or no 'training' is, or will be available in the future. However do not hold me to that - its just a guess.
Given that Contract Provider Staff are effectively at an identical (if not lower) level of competence as Administrative Officers within Job Centre Plus, I trust that those staff who are made redundant will find that Junior Graded Admin Officers within Job Centre Plus will assist them in finding new employment.
Despite the current economic downturn, the Call Centre Sector is still a vibrant sector, and I am sure that Contract Provider Staff, once made redundant, wont find it too challenging to undergo a period of retraining before entering a Call Centre. The Government is still helping people with costs, and staff will find it fairly straightforward to apply for Career Development Loans to cover the cost of training.
So far, staff have been TUPE'd across from existing providers to new ones. It seems likely that this practice will continue unless someone challenges it in court.
@Megan: eh?!
If they have been working for the provider continuously for 2 years + they should get redundancy pay, so they might not have to apply for a career development loan or at least, if they do, for a smaller one.
Here's what Shaw Trust said about TUPE as it applies to Workstep / Work Choice in their recent submission to the Select Committee's review of contracting:
My 'Old' Company held a three stage TUPE consultation process with certain 'conditions' being mentioned that would be carried over. My 'New' Company is blissfully unaware of most of these. The main bugbear being the significant loss in earnings. (No target related job entry / sustainment bonus in the New Company). Also my base has changed and I was informed that I would be awarded a 'travel allowance' for the difference in miles to the new base. I live and work in Wales. My Old Company was on the tele not long ago. I've found myself on an emergency tax code (New Company blames Old Company for delays in release of rel' docs) Any one else finding that TUPE has had it's niggles?
I think you are being quite polite to describe the process as having "niggles". We were assured we were to be found a job as close as possible to our previous role, mine could not be more different if they had tried. My strengths and skills are not being used and even worse I am excess to requirements and some poeple face loosing their jobs because of my placement here. When I asked about other options I was informed it was "this or the dole"!
I notice that Peopleserve (Biscom) have not advertised on this site or their website for Sub-contractors/partners to help them in their delivery of FND if they're sucessful with their bid. Given the deadline of 7th Jan for the ITT to be in, aren't they leaving it a bit late in the day?
Does anybody know the amswer to this?
I don't think there is a polite answer!
In response to Jack Jones re Biscom. I have been looking on their website too and boy is it confusing. Firstly, don't visit the Biscom website as it was designed when the web was in its infancy by schoolkids as a homework project. The PeopleServe website lists out of date contracts in FND1 areas and looks like it gets updated by Rescare as there's a lot of links back to their USA operations. They even spell the american way for gods sake! Please do something about it. Very strange though how there isn't anything about partnership opportunities for phase 2. Are they really arrogant enough to believe they can go it alone? I notice they got into bed with Serco in Phase 1 (I wonder how that partnership came about), then all of a sudden they are shortlisted in phase 2, in their own right. Srange, very strange, wierd, unusual, hmm, something a wee bit stinky this way comes! I wonder what you make of it Daniel, do you have any views? Maybe this is the reason they have changed their Head Honchos more times than i've changed my underpants this week.
Ps. very few postings over the past week everybody must be knee deep in swapping emails in preparation for the ITT.
You've missed the boat - their deadline was several weeks ago, along with Shaw Trust and Reed.
Oh really, and where was this partnership opportunity advertised for all to see and respond to? Certainly not on this website and definitely not on their website, unless you mean the pathetic half-arsed attempt of one with an email address and no other detail. If it is out there somewhere i.e. their delivery model, then it's jolly well hidden. As regards to the 'several weeks ago' deadline, good luck to them!!!
A tender drafting consultany email out a tender update on a weekly basis which included this.
The deadlines for Shaw Trust were much tighter and far more information was required.
So it was only available to those who paid the extortionate cost of Jim Carleys tender tracker then?
Thats nice and inclusive to those thousands of potential providers who get this info for free elsewhere and who dont have the cost and capacity to pay for it.
What happens if they want to dseliver almost entirely on their own, with no subs, link Working Links?
What does TUPE stand for?
Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment)
CAN I JUST ASK HAS ANYONE EXPERIENCED THE FACT THAT STAFF DONT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ANY OF THE PROGRAMMES - WHY - COS THEY KEEP THEIR JOBS THRU TUPE - I DONT PERFORM, MY CONTRACT GETS TERMINATED AND GUESS WHAT ................I TRANSFER TO NEW PROVIDER AND STILL DONT GIVE A DAMN COS MY LENGTH OF SERVICE CONTINUES, PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT - WHAT THE HECK, NOT BOTHERED, CONTRACT IS TRANSFERRED AND I MOVE THRU TUPE TO NEW EMPLOYER, GIVE IT ANOTHER 12 MONTHS, CONTRACT IS TERMINATED, I MOVE AGAIN TO NEW CONTRACTOR ....IT GOES ON AND ON AND ON AND ON........................................CAPABILITY AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT IS IRRELEVANT, TELL THAT TO THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
Double DEE DEE - what a shameful confession, if you "do not give a damn" why do you stay within the industry, go and get another job where your clear contempt does not affect peoples lives. It is people like you who give W2W a bad name. If you worked for me you would not last till the contract got terminated you would be out the door long before that.
I find it galling that you are prepared to accept a salary when you clearly do not put in the required effort, I just hope you do get fired and end up at a Tribunal - believe me you won't have a leg to stand on with a decent employer with robust HR procedures - been there, seen it, done it.
Boy Racer - I was not referring to myself - it was an analogy of what I see/hear with some of my colleagues - although NOT ALL staff, some I have spoken to feel that way I described in my 1st posting - I dont feel that way and work very hard alongside a lot of others in the industry - i am committed and passionate about my job and love working with my clients to get them the outcome they need to move forward in life.
I think what I am trying to say is that there appears in some cases to be complacency and a reduced desire to achieve the programme objectives............does that make sense???
Well I owe you an apology then, it does sound as if it were you making the comments hence my rather strong response
Hi, I've just had a meeting with the new providers who haven't confirmed that i will be TUPED even thou i qualify. They have also informed me that I WILL be transferred over on my original contract. I was to understand that i wud b given the choice? Can any1 tell me if i'm correct? I find it difficult to make an informed decision on the new provider wen they r giving no information about their Contracts which i wud b expected 2 change 2 after joining them?
starlite31 - are you talking about new Work Programme providers? If so no one has been awarded the contracts yet so no one is going to agree to TUPE anyone over at this stage. You're going to have to be patient (easy for me to say I know). Staff are usually TUPE'd across on their original contracts as that's the point of TUPE eg you aren't worse off if the new employer's conditions aren't as good as your existing ones. You can only assume that your existing terms and conditions will continue. But providers aren't going to give you contractual information until they have been awarded the contract.
If you aren't talking about the Work Programme and the providers have been awarded contracts then they should give you full details about their offer to enable you to make an informed decision.
Lazarus - Thank u 4 ur response. No i'm not talking about the new Work Programme. Soz, I should have made that clear. I work as a front line Mental Health Support worker & the new providers have been confirmed. Completion of take over is 7th March 11.I have very little knowledge on TUPE particularly as this date is almost upon us. They have refused 2 give any information on their contracts?
Ah ha! Assuming from your previous post you are being transferred over to the new provider with your existing terms and conditions then there won't be a new contract as such. Your new employer won't just be able to force a new contract on you and won't usually get away with making changes to contracts that are detrimental to you even after you've joined them. That's the protection offered by TUPE.
There are lots of requirements placed on the old and new employers in these situations, a major one being consultation and information sharing! It doesn't seem like you're aware of any consultation. Your current employer should be able to advise you about the processes, what information they've passed on, how it is affecting you etc. If you can't get any information from them I'd advise you to ring ACAS where you can have a proper conversation with an expert so you can better explain your position. It will be much more help than this forum as it's a complex issue.
ACAS Helpline: 08457 474 747
Good luck!
Lazarus, Much appreciated advice. Thank you
dwp states the JCP delivery after Pathways ends in April 'a new initiative and very different in nature to Pathways.
JCP staff front line and management whom I have spoken with are unaware of any additional footfall and although we realise that these Pathways clients would not be mandated to interviews, should they have needs in this interim period it is unclear what would be available eg help with applications and money for interview clothing? The DWP site does not state what this support for ESA claimants will be.
My question is who will these clients turn to? I have increasing numbers of clients reading things in the press about the changes,however am unable to give reassurance as to what this 'new initiative' will look like.
If DWP are clear on what it will cover then maybe they could advise the Pathway providers to ensure that these people can be given some reassurance. Also would help the 100's of advisers who are in the process of being made redundant why they are not to be TUPE'd to JCP and then to the Work Program.
Call me cynical but I think that this is the new coalition government cutting too close to the bone and therefore the providers would look to cut the salary bandings of roles on the work program, obviously something that they could not do if we were all TUPE'd.
Pay peanuts get monkeys??
A lot of your cynicism is justified purely because the hard evidence stands in your favour. For example, a recent advert for a "consultant" specialising in career advice was offering £18,774 - £24,000. Compare this with salaries outside the sector for the same role and they offer £24 - £27,000 (and can even rise to £30,000+). As for caseworkers outside the field? Well the lowest salries average £21,000, but on average range between £24,000 and £30,000.
So why are the monkeys being paid peanuts? Well there are several reasons.
1. Caseworkers, career guidance advisers and trainers outside this sector have tended towards formalising a defined set of qualifications to work in the field. More importantly, they require ongoing CPD to stay in the job.
2. The workers in other fields are often required to become members of a professional body that governs and advises on best practice in the field.
3. In addition, many of the workers mentioned previously have chosen to join a trade union. Despite Unison opening its door and creating a section for private sector welfare to work staff, the response has been limited.
4. There is a general openness in other sectors about salary scales. Not all firms/ organisations necessarily pay the same rate, but candidates are usually fully aware of where their potential pay scale sits compared to other organisations.
5. Though their contracts aren't necessarily 'permanent' (though some are), most have a career expectancy that allows them to settle with organisations for some years. Indeed, it is not uncommon to come across social welfare staff who have been with the same organisation for 10, 15 or 20+ years.
In short, until staff in the sector become angry enough to want things to be different you can expect more of the same. A lot of people I have spoken to have said they feel there is currently much wrong with the sector - my response is simple - its not enough to want to change, its not enough to need to change ... in order to change, you must experience change.
In the meantime, anyone for a banana?
Read my blog at http://bit.ly/eLwJ9p
"A recent advert for...."? You base your whole post on THAT? My God, you've spouted some rubbish on here in recent weeks, but that's got to go straight in at Number One!
OK, so you disagree - though I think most would agree the hostility was a little uncalled for. But would you care to offer a counter-argument rather than flame?
Read my blog at http://bit.ly/eLwJ9p
You're missing the point my friend. I can't offer you a counter because, like you, I don't have sufficient data to establish an average.
You have compared what appear to be norms for other sectors to a single, bad example in ours. That's like putting Which? magazine's reviews of the iPhone up against a single user's experience of a duff Blackberry! Forget comparing apples to pears, you're comparing apples to a single pear's dodgy pips!
So instead of making sweeping generalizations, go dig out some data.. Recruitment agencies are a good port of call.
And hostility? Not at all, just amazement at the sheer conviction that you seem to have of your opinions. There's certainly a pattern to your posts, largely along the lines of "I think, therefore it is".
Firstly, the "generalisations" you accuse me of are actual figures, whereas you offer no counter argument beyond rhetoric. Therefore, I would argue that until proven otherwise, my argument stands. The reality is that many in the sector do receive low pay - a possible result of lack of formal professional standards and any formal professional body to monitor and uphold them.
Secondly, I am left wondering why you are so defensive of the lack of any salary structure within the sector. Surely it is in the best interests of staff, providers and the clients they serve to ensure staff do not receive (to quote another posting) "peanuts".
Finally, you are correct in your last assumption. Yes I have a complete belief in my convictions and I make no apology for being an idealist. However, I would like to believe I am not a bigot and, as such, I am open to alternate arguments - where they offer strength and accuracy. As yet, I have yet to see any counterargument that has forced me to reconsider my opinion.
In an earlier posting I outlined 5 reasons why the "monkeys were being paid peanuts". I see no reason to review my analysis. What concerns me is the strength of argument some have offered against my calls for professionalisation - to me that is most worrying.
Read my blog at http://bit.ly/eLwJ9p
Defensive? Moi? I have no reason to be (I'm not one of those big, nasty employers that you've vented your spleen about, just a worker in the sector), but stop presenting shallow research as fact. I'll say again - there is no counter argument as neither you nor I have sufficient factual evidence to make a valid point.
To reiterate, I am not taking any stance in defense of the sector, merely pointing out that you are quoting "facts" that are anything but. Comparing one poorly paying provider to the average in other sectors is the type of spin I expect from politicians, not intelligent people (hee hee!). Do your research, gather enough data to be able to establish a true norm in our sector, then post your findings. You'll hear no argument from me if they indicate that this sector underpays.
And finally, a little story.
A group of scientists is performing a series of experiments on a spider. They cut one leg off the spider and tell it to crawl. The spider crawls.
Next they cut a second leg off the spider. "Crawl!" they command. The spider crawls.
They cut off a third leg. "Crawl!" The spider crawls.
They continue cutting the legs off the spider one at a time and commanding it to crawl. Each time, with one leg less, the poor spider crawls.
Finally, they cut the eighth leg off the spider and tell it to crawl. The spider does not respond. Then one scientist says to the other, "Make a note, when we cut off the eighth leg, the spider became deaf.".
It's so easy to take a fact and make a judgement. Validating it is another matter entirely.
I confess to some surprise that you are so defensive of salaries employers pay frontline staff. My experience in many sectors, including welfare to work is that ordinarily personnel tend to look at their income and feel that generally they should be entitled to more. The fact you seem content with 'your lot' reflects well on your employer, but does not necessarily demosntrate a generic trend within the sector. In the examples I gave I offered demonstrations of inequalities - please note, I never referred to it as 'research' merely as an example of discrepancies between this and other sectors. Now, if you can show me caseworkers earning over £30,000 in this sector then I would be most interested in your examples.
I appreciate your lesson in research methods but feel sufficiently confident that I already understand the basics of extrapolating ahypothesis and turniung it into a theory. Whilst amusing it did little to add to our discussion.
perhaps more importantly we should be talking about the current reticence of the profession to move forward and professionalise itself. It is in this area it is sadly lacking and needs to bring itself into the twenty-first century.
Read my blog at http://bit.ly/eLwJ9p
For too long there have been a number of people working in the sector who are poorly trained, unqualified and who provide a substandard service. Many staff fit into the first two categories and a few (even those that are "qualified") fit into the latter.
I'm not sure if "professionalising the industry" which is the latest trendy band-wagon, is going to result in what we need. It's really helpful to establish some recognised routes and training, and on the job training is a vital aspect of any successful sector. However, look at what "professionalisation" has done for nursing. We now have nurses with degrees (whooppee), but has the standard of patient care increased? All research (and I'm not going to quote the source Dante!) suggests it has done little to improve the service received by patients.
There are a huge amount of people who provide an excellent service in our sector, who have never been trained and don't hold formal qualifications. If we force people down the professional route we could shut the door to some fantastic people. So maybe before organisations (who shall remain anonymous) keep themselves in business by leading and creating this professional route with the great and good deciding what should happen to the rest of us, maybe we should all look at what we want, what we really mean by professionalising the industry, and what is the best way to achieve the required result.
I see a number of adverts now for the sector which, particularly for managers, require "a degree". Well that counts me out - puts me firmly in my place doesn't it! So be careful what you ask for ... you might just get it! :)
There are examples of welfare-to-work providers who pay advisors over 30k e.g. Ingeus in London.
Yes, but does this effectively result in an actual salary in excess of £30K once you remove the London weighting? This isn't a comment, it is a question. If it does, then it sends a very clear message across the field of a broad standard that needs to be achieved for advisors nationally.
Read my blog at http://bit.ly/eLwJ9p
Reliable sources inform me Pathways front line staff (roughly 460) currently working for a major provider have formally been given their 90 days redundancy notice from the 21st of March. Legal issues prevent me from naming the company, but those interested can work it out if I say their name consists of 3 letters/ numbers. A real tragedy and coming at a time when the entire sector is looking very shaky.
A more detailed report will appear in my blog on Monday.
Read my blog at http://bit.ly/eLwJ9p
to all the a4e staff that got there notice last week dont worry! go to the job center speak to them there are lots of courses for you to go on! there is plenty of help out there..
this is a worrying time, I work for a provider and over 200 of us have just been given redundancy notice. Will there be anyone left to give the training, confidence and motivation to our customers and get them back into work. I fear for the future unless the funding agencies get their fingers out and confirm new contracts for providers.
it seems providers are on the one hand trying to tell their key staff not to worry whilst at the same time handing out redundancy notices. Inevitably this will lead to severe haemmoraghing within thes ector as people are forced to leave and look for alternate employment.
If it continues it begs the question about what kind of standard of delivery will providers be able to provide if their key staff have gone.
Read my blog at http://bit.ly/eLwJ9p
For those interested, my blog giving more details on the redundancies mentioned above is now available at http://bit.ly/eLwJ9p
Lady P, What training?
Submitted by lady P on Sun, 13/03/2011 - 4:26pm.
this is a worrying time, I work for a provider and over 200 of us have just been given redundancy notice. Will there be anyone left to give the training, confidence and motivation to our customers and get them back into work. I fear for the future unless the funding agencies get their fingers out and confirm new contracts for providers.
For a start, I think people need to stop bitching at each other and realise that we are all in the same boat. As for those talking about "poorly qualified, untraied staff" PLEASE get a grip. Qualifications do not make the advisor. My qualifications are in very different things but this does not make me a bad advisor. I work very hard and have recieved good in house training on my position. I think it is important for advisors, consultants etc to understand how it feels to be out of work and in a bad situation. The best advisors I know have had to go through periods of unemployment/W2W help before getting back into work. This gives the advisors the drive and enthusiasm to give the help that is so desperately needed.
It is attitudes like that, that give W2W a bad name and make people not want the help that we can offer.
Saintly makes an interesting point. Within the sector there are many professional working at the sharp end with a broad range of qualifications, many of which are totally unrelated to their daily activity. This does not, of itself make for bad professional/ client interaction. Indeed, many of these relationships have as their foundation a deep empathy for their client and an over-riding ambition to help them achieve their goals and aspirations. In this respect, frontline staff, operating within a broadly-based Rogerian/ person-centred approach (with perhaps a little behavioural or cognitive behavioural twiddly bits on the end) should be welcomed. The fact these professionals do not have a qualification does not particularly disturb me, where in-house training has been of a high standard and quality assurance and client engagement facilitate ongoing change and staff development.
However, in an ever changing world, I think it time we sought to formalise our profession and give frontline staff the credibility they deserve. Fred Kite's comments may offend some, but I have seen some staff who should not work with a sick parrot, much less vulnerable human beings. Equally, there are some staff out there who are achieving things that quite honestly makes my jaw drop in awe and admiration when I see them work. It is time we recognised this talent and rewarded it accordingly with licensing of practitioners.
Read my blog at http://bit.ly/eLwJ9p
Tacitus, what comments and how did they offend?
'Fred Kite's comments may offend some, but I have seen some staff who should not work with a sick parrot, much less vulnerable human beings.'
Fred, I wrote that a month ago and if I am completely honest I cannot fully recall my line of thought at the time. Indeed, these days I find it difficult to recall what i ate in my sandwich and that was only an hour ago!
Reading back through the thread I think I might have been referring to your suggestion that little or no 'training' is, or will be available in the future. However do not hold me to that - its just a guess.
Read my blog at http://bit.ly/eLwJ9p