What W2W scheme would work?

With every man, women and their respective pets slating the Work Programme, questions need to be asked what would constitute as an ideal programme for the unemployed to be on? How it would work, how it would be regulated and how it would be delivered?

Other options:

A)Do we scrap W2W programmes all together and allow job seekers & "job seekers" (wink, wink) to be left to their own devices whilst still claiming JSA?

B) Do we take the running of these programmes away from private, profit lead companies?

C) Do we stop paying benefits completely and let the country descend into anarchy?

Everyone seems to have an opinion on what's wrong with Work Programme, so lets have a discussion on how things could be put right, because I doubt very much that the Government will scrap it and lose face by admitting that it's not working.

Look across the pond to the USA - they have Unemployment Insurance with a mandate to look for work - but in most areas it's now digital by default so effectively non-existent.

Then they have time limits on UI beyond which the only benefit is food stamps (now electronic as well).

Arguably far less responsive to the slightest economic improvement than the UK system (where you are asked by providers to evidence high levels of jobsearch regularly).

Hi

Well i would like funding to retrain or go to college fulltime . Maybe instead of them paying out 5 billion plus to companies who obv commit fraud and suchlike they could help the people who really want help... The way i see it you have 2 types of folk that are fit to work them who really want a job and the ones who don't but were all grouped together into this rubbish and all are given no help. I am sure some on here will argue but lets watch the news unfold in the next few months WP is failing badly. No doubt it will get a nice big Bailout. I am sure they must waste more of tax payers money on these sh@t schemes than the bill for the benefits ...

Feel free to shred me lol ...

A) and c) are just silly but b) is a good start because the profit/loss method was always likely to raise eyebrows and in my first hand experience is the lead principle as to what help can be offered and as time went on 1 to 1 inductions ended and now 1 to 1 advisor meetings have also ended. this is systematic of under bidding and the rules of the game change(i have lots of experience of this in the archaeological sector)and the ground staff face the consequences of more to do with less money this is partly to do with the contract being back loaded and the estimated targets of u.k growth and unemployment figures now wildly out of all reality. there will always be some who view J.S.A as there career path and a private or state W.P is not going to solve that problem.if the programmes were run as in the old system i would not have to wait 10 months doing job search hoping that this batch of applications 1 might be successful but have a range of training that may help because the funds are central and not dependent on the bottom line being red or black. i am not saying the old system was perfect( the allegations prove that) but central funding will solve many of the problems i feel that are wrong with the W.P. save the private venture model when we are not facing the greatest threat to western civilisation since the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains

Gis a job, "W.P. save the private venture model when we are not facing the greatest threat to western civilisation since the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains"

I would argue that terrorism represents a significantly greater risk

Ahem you seemed to be suggesting The Work Programme represents a greater risk, then you appear to undermine your own argument. So you are saying the financial crisis is greater than terrorism or the examples you now list?

@voice

you misunderstand(W.P. save the private venture model\ see full stop after W.P) i am not saying the W.P is the threat to western civilisation but the current economic conditions are the threat and the private venture models saved for when there is stable economic foundations to make a valid judgement on there successes or failures

Do we take the running of these programmes away from private, profit lead companies? YES!

Do we scrap W2W programmes NO. Whatever W2W programme make it Voluntary no sanctions etc
maybe like a drop in centre if you need help with something you just go there the people who want work will go there!!! jcp should have more time with people so that they can help them find work

new
Submitted by gis_a_job on Fri, 25/05/2012 - 2:20pm.
@voice

you do misunderstand(W.P. save the private venture model\ see full stop after W.P) i am not saying the W.P is the threat to western civilisation but the current economic conditions are the threat and the private venture models saved for when there is stable economic foundations to make a valid judgement on there successes or failures

Thanks for the clarification

@highpark - Your idea is very good and will work for many who want to work, but sanctions are there to encourage participation by people who mainly don't want to work and are happy to sit at home and do nothing.

Is it right we exclude them from these services and leave them to suffer? - Sounds like 'parking' to me.

suffer? what do you mean... and how would you be excluding them? i said Voluntary that to me means anyone could go

People on work related benefits essentially fall into one of four categories. Not an equal 4-way split I would hasten to add (indeed I would be interested to understand the split ratio). The 4 x categories being: ‘Can work – will work’, ‘Can work – won’t work’, Can’t work – will work’ and ‘Can’t work – won’t work’. These four categories clearly need very different approaches and as things stand in the WP, the category in which an individual sits, does not always fit the funding that is attached to supporting them. The trick is the accurate assessment of individuals as to which category they belong in. At the moment the blunt tool used is the benefit you are on.

And yes – I’m all for delivery being through ‘not for profit’ organisations.

Voice of WP on Fri, 25/05/2012 - 2:00pm.
"Ahem you seemed to be suggesting The Work Programme represents a greater risk, then you appear to undermine your own argument. So you are saying the financial crisis is greater than terrorism or the examples you now list?"

It's not 'a risk', the WP is causing the more damage than both the others together.

The financial crisis is not a money problem - else we could all just add a few zeros to our bank accounts to instantly solve it, or the Gov. could just simply print some - not that they would do that.
It's a wealth distribution problem. As gis_a_job hints at, if we don't find an easy way to re-distribute it, it will happen the hard way anyway eventually.
Having poor ppl working for rich ppl for nothing actually makes the problem worse.
That why the wp turns out just as us nutters predict, and UK growth turns out at -0.3%, who'd have predicted that, and there's more to come yet. Just where has has all this effort/investment/success gone. r?

How to improve 'it', the quickest way, scrap it!
It's so damaged now, the only option is as others say 3-6 months voluntary, there is no other option. Of course in an attempt to improve it, it will be made more manditory, we don't mind at all, we'll just watch and wait.

Think of it this way. It's based on 2 years from when the customer(LOL) gets a job. During that time one private company is trying to help/control another private company(give him a pay rise) and the customer, in the current UK economy, all the while the customer is trying to dodge the bullets. You couldn't make it up! It won't work, human nature doesn't work that way.

We need to think differently.
We need to think outside of the box, esp. that black one, there's nothing of use in it.

Forget 'work' as drudgery, it's not. Forget 'work' as punishment for criminals ^h sorry
the unemployed, it's not, what would happen if they enjoyed it.

For get ppl are lazy, they're not, that's why wasting massive amounts of resources on them doesn't work.

Hope that's enough for now!

Grappling

Would you like to elaborate on the risk on The Work Programme compared to say terrorism and the examples. The Work Programme is getting people into work, early stats show it more succesful than legacy programmes even in a poor economy, i am not following your logic, or lack of it I'm afraid

The WP scheme needs the following, in the order of my points below:- 1. The economic conditions have to "come right" before the WP scheme can work. The WP scheme is not capable of working unless there is massive job-creation first. 2. When (if) the new jobs start coming on-stream, the next step will be to ensure that the jobless have the right skills for the new jobs PLUS the necessary work experience to enable them to compete for the new jobs. I think that what happened in 2010 is that Cameron & Co expected the "sunny uplands." All of their policies have been based on the "sunny uplands" idea, including the WP scheme. They have been unbelievably reluctant to recognise the realities. In 2010, it looked as if the economy was on the mend but the new Govt underestimated how fragile it still was, tried to inflict "sunny uplands" policies on it all the same and have pushed the economy into the "miserable doldrums" as a direct result. In this "miserable doldrums" situation, the WP scheme cannot succeed. I don't think that trying to tweak the WP scheme would actually work at this stage of the economic cycle if we isolate the idea of the "economic cycle" to the UK alone for the time being, for simplicity. So in simple terms, the UK economy has to "come right" and move into the "sunny uplands" before the WP scheme can actually work. We are being told that the UK's own "miserable doldrums" situation could actually deepen and last for longer than anyone hopes because of external factors beyond the UK's own control, primarily because of the Eurozone problems and the knock-on effect that the Eurozone might have on the EU project. If the pollies are right about that then it would be doubly pointless to interfere with the WP scheme right now. Throughout European History so far, the "traditional solution" to this type of situation has been armed conflict. However, very few Leaders would want to risk that today because weapons are now so good that the attrition rate would be exceptionally (and imho unacceptably) high. I don't think it is possible to consider the WP scheme in isolation from all the other factors, domestic and external. Narrowing it down to the WP scheme alone for a moment, though, the "owners" of the WP Scheme are the 18 (I believe?) Prime Contractors. They are the people who are carrying 100% of the financial risk with the WP scheme. Let us say that I were Therese Rein and that I therefore owned Ingeus. In her shoes, I'd have set a financial ceiling, on Day One, on how many £m I would be prepared to invest in propping up the WP scheme. Unlike Emma Harrison, Ms Rein has a very solid reputation as a very successful, experienced, capable businesswoman. Ms Rein is also an Australian Citizen. That is significant because for her the UK's WP scheme is nothing more than a "foreign adventure." She's not going to sink her life savings into it or anything silly. I've no idea whether Ms Rein has decided to risk £10m, £20m, £30m or whatever in the W2W industry in the UK but my guess is that she set herself a "ceiling risk capital" figure on Day One and that she will stick to it. If the WP scheme has not moved into profit forr Ms Rein by the time she reaches her outlay "ceiling," I think she'll close the UK business and walk away from the whole thing. That would be the usual drill with any entrepreneur. I'm not aware of a single other Prime that is as anywhere near as wealthy and as well-capitalised (or as carefully and well-advised) as Therese Rein. She's not involved the UK's WP scheme for any reason other than profit for herself. She is probably also the most experienced operator in the field of this type of W2W scheme (ie the Work Programme type of scheme.) Entrepreneurs do not make their money out of being soppy about anyone else. They are not soppy about sub-contractors, their own staff, recruitment agents in the W2W sector or the customers of the business - the UK's jobless, in this case. In Xiko's and Voice's shoes, I'd be asking myself, "Will this WP game continue until such time as I decide to retire?" I wouldn't be worrying about what the jobless might think because the people like Ms Rein sure as hell aren't worrying about either Xiko or Voice. Neither are the Government - they've shifted the commercial risk. Have the majority of the people whose incomes depend solely on the UK-based W2W Industry been stitched up? In my own opinion, yes they have. [Moderated]

THX VoWP, no probs. I'll try.
I agree not everything's not all black or all white, this shows how difficult it can be sometimes to do vague ideas in text.

By 'risk' I mean risk to the UK economy, and more importantly risk to ppl's standard of living, which is what counts, but in theory at least they should both track together(roughly).

A good SoL generally means
income > outgoing = no debts and a little luxury now and again. = more happy & less stress,
income < outgoing = no luxuries, poss. debts = less happy & more stress.

If the balance is close you can economise of course, to get back to income >= outgoing.
But once you've done that 2 or 3 times, you become really aware that your SoL keeps dropping, and there's not much you can do about it = more stress/worry - been there done that.
It's very difficult/impossible for example to just ask for a pay rise, or more hours, or go on strike! or move to a better paid job, or sometimes just keep your job, due to the state of the labour market. How does the WP improve the labour market or pay, or the economy for instance. Seems to be bad for all.

Last winter, instead of a drop in unemployment(xmas workers) it increased by 129,000 ouch! Why take ppl on when you can get them for free. So rather than some of Big Retails' stored £30bn or so dropping into the local economies, it was instead topped up by taxpayers, all due to the wp. I'm not saying all this is anywhere near 100% all correct, but it's the perception(which is what counts) I and obviously others had - which led to the big backlash.
Retail 'A' is reported to have said 'Ahh but we only used them during the xmas rush'. Some of us will see the problem with that defence, but it's difficult to explain.

If you asked 100s of people at random what is causing them the 'most' worry/stress at the moment, some at the young and old age range might actually say ending up on the wp and stacking shelves, but most will say the cost of food, fuel, their job, keeping their job, losing their job, trying to get on(or off) the housing ladder, family problems. I can't imagine any of them are going to say terrorism.
I was in a shopping center scare a few months ago, there was absolutely no panic whatsoever, in fact it was hard to keep ppl even strolling towards the exits.

So yes, the wp is more risk/damaging to the wellbeing of the UK and it's economy than the 'financial' crisis or terrorism combined.
Possibly all that's as clear as mud.

Random Thoughts just to keep ppl busy/amused

The North West UK seems to have providers (and 'customers'!) coming out of its ears.
So, now that the WP is in full swing, and proving to be highly successful, why did NW unemployment increase by 18,000 last month, and increase by 11,000 this month, +9% in 2 months.

The WP is esp. designed to help the long-term unemployed back into work isn't it, OK great. So why then...you've guessed it already! did I hear on the TV news this week that NW long-term unemployment has actually doubled in the last year.
If that's success I'd hate to see what failure looks like!
Of course I already (think I) know the answer(s), but you'll have to wait for my book.

Last random thought, thank goodness!
I don't think it's possible to increase gdp in any meaningful way or amount at the moment, no matter how many WP advisors there are, with current thinking and measuring,
consumerism = dead duck.
production = import of oil,gas,electricity,coal,metals,food,junk.

We'd have to do it very efficiently, and I don't think using 120,000 ppl to do the work of 40,000 ppl is.

So we now have the people saying scrap The Work Programme, wait until the economy gets better, wait for this, wait for that. Fact is we are in the here and now, we need to do what we can to keep things going. Someone suggested we scrap The Work Programme and give the unemployed £500 to "assist" them! Really, is that the way forward, is that the answer? The economy is struggling which is why The Work Programme must keep going. It is moving people off benefits and into work- fact You can argue that someone else may have got the job therefore it is not creating work but if that someone else was not claiming benefit or even claiming a lower benefit then you have a net benefit as there is less money being paid out. You can argue that the unemployed person may have got the job on their own, strange that they struggled for months, even years beforehand, you forget that even having someone saying you must look for a job may be the tipping point to getting out and finding one, therefore The Work Programme did do some good in that instance; it may just not be as obvious. You can argue The Work Programme does nothing but I see first hand every day the good work it does, the way it changes lives. I do not disagree there are advisors who do not care in the same way there are unemployed who do not care. If the attitude was to take a few unemployed who do not care and then decide to stop everyone's benefits there would be an outcry, this is what people suggest on here, some people are no good therefore scrap the whole scheme! Getting back to work is not just about financial well being, it has been proven that if you are out of work you are more likely to suffer ill health, your children have poor health, your life expectancy is shortened etc etc, in short work is good for you. Now I am not having a go at those who wish to work, I am very sympathetic to those who want to work and are struggling to find a job BUT I have no sympathy with those who can work but want to wait for their perfect job, in some cases thinking they can claim benefits for years and make minimal attempts to find work, all the time saying " I won't. Do this job, I won't do that job". In the states you only get benefit for a set period and it is strongly linked to finding work or doing public service. I absolutely do not understand the mentality of someone taking public money but not being prepared to performs public duty for doing so, it would save a heck of a lot of money if councils could use benefit claimants to deal with some of the services they have had to cut due to austerity. The money is being paid out, there are people able to do the work, the council does not have the budget, no brainier in my book, but wait that would mean forcing people to something they morally object to, but at the same time they have no moral conscience about taking from the public purse and adding nothing back. I would rather work for my benefit, it would keep me healthy, fit, give me a sense of pride, it would give me experience, a reference and updated cv. Now I am sure there will be a deluge of protests coming in on the back of this but please try and keep it civil, on topic and to the point. [Moderated]

@voice

Someone suggested we scrap The Work Programme and give the unemployed £500 to "assist" them! Really, is that the way forward, is that the answer?

I think that it was me you are referring to but if you read the post it is £500 for you to find a training provider as part of the W.P and what you suggest is just foolish taking comments out of context and using them for your own purposes helps no one

I would rather work for my benefit

this is a vicious circle when we pay in taxes to protect us when there are no jobs and whos job will you be doing for no pay

http://www.inquisitr.com/211740/u-s-judges-admit-to-jailing-children-for...

perhaps you feel this is also a good outcome for private venture

Lazy cow
Therese rein does not own ingeus.
Ingeus is 50% owned by Deloitte
She is the uk md
The Australian business was sold in 2007 and she has nothing to do with it
She has not invested her personal wealth in The Work Programme
The JV with Deloitte was set up for The Work Programme, Deloitte bankrolled the bid

You say she is propping up The Work Programme suggesting losing money, then you rant about how people are getting rich on The Work Programme, which is it to be.
Primes will only make money if they get the required number of people into work and keep them there, no ifs no buts no maybes but fact.
You will not make money by attaching people on the programme and doing nothing with them, moving them into sustainable employees is how it will work, again fact. If people make money as it has been a success what is wrong with that, if the government thought they could do it better and cheaper they would simply hand all responsibility to a government department, they know the best chance of success is to outsource the risk.
Again you make wild assumptions

So we give you £500 and you spend it purely on training, for what.
Many posters on here say there are highly qualified people who cannot find a job thus it is not simply about a training certificate in basket weaving that is needed.
There is a host of things that are needed to move people into work, training is only 1 strand of a complex problem.
You oversimplify to back your own situation.
If you could guarantee a job as a result of some for of training then I do not see many providers saying no, think about it.
If all you need is say a forklift licence and you have an absolute guarantee of a job with an employer who is prepared to confirm there is a long term job available if you had said certificate, the providers pays out a few hundred pounds, you get a job ( for which there is no payment to the provider) but 3 or 6 months down the line they get an outcome payment which more than covers their training cost, they also receive the small but regular sustainment payments.
So if it really is just about a few hundred pounds training then we have the problem solved but you know it runs deeper than that.
Again, you are doing job seekers a disservice suggesting it is just about training, many have complex needs that providers are tasked with sorting. It is not unusual for a customer to have substance misuse problems, perhaps housing issues and maybe a criminal record, throwing £500 and telling him to get trained is a waste of money and you know it. Some of the people on The Work Programme will need many months, possibly years of support before they are job ready but that is a different group and a different argument to the shirkers who are job ready, able but unwilling.

@voice

here is my post on the £500 question(from another thread) i agree that some job seekers have complex needs(like the one you quote)and need a separate route than unemployed jobseekers. you must admit that post funding for training as madness if you need a F.L.T licence\c.s.c.s card you will not get a interview never mind a job offer(if you ran a taxi company would you hire some one who has there driving test in a couple of weeks no! you would say reapply when you have a driving licence) how many people ask for basket weaving or see it as a possible career path.

the £500 for training is not a silver bullet that will suddenly get thousands for people back to jobs but as part of training programmes that the W.P publicises in public but in reality is limited to basic numeracy and literacy tests or training that is post job offer funded( C.S.C.S cards and in my personnel experience sage line 50)\in house lead by advisor's(on the cheap training) which in this economic climate is unfeasible at best and lunacy at worst. i am not saying that every one starts the W.P are handed £500 and off you go.you would set it out to your advisor and work from there.the C.S.C.S cards cover more industry's than building contractors(archaeological company's now see it preferable if you to have one now but until early 2011 was never asked for)and no employer is going to wait while you take the courses as this is a buyers market.in my case sage line 50 would have increased the jobs i can apply for and given me a skill and qualification to carry on with my working life( circa another 40 years). the work programme is a social programme(meant to be) and the cost that i ask for is small beer and most training programmes that will be commonly asked for will cost less than half the £500.the government keeps on telling us we need a highly skilled and educated workforce but sadly you don't seems to see the merit of training

Having contributed in to the system(at one time averaging £6000.00 monthly)I feel ashamed that I am signing on and dependant on £71.00 a week,no housing or any other benefit,but with that goes no training,no support and it seems that the whole WP/JCP mantra is it is not our problem that you remain unemployed it is yours!I recently was sent on a mandatory interview 62 miles away(I had to pay for travel, but got reimbursed)I questioned the validity of this job,you must attend or face a 6 month sanction..OK,do you realise that this is a job for only 4 hours? Yes..Do you realise the duration for this job is for 1 day?..Yes.. Train fare is £16.80 return and the job pays £24.40..Are you serious? Any work is better than none..You must sign off and after the job has ended you will have to start a new claim..I cleaned a public loo,but first I had buy steel toed boots(£35.00 submitted to JCP) such a joke! [Moderated]

Welfare benefits remain voluntary, it is just that those who volunteer to be on Job Search Allowance are expected to be seeking a Job. There should be no need for sanctions as those who volunteer for the benefit should understand that the benefit comes with additional support services to help them into work. The issue of private sector or third sector remains a non-issue, it remains the quality of the support services available to the job seeker. The Work Programme is similar to many other programmes around the world, each have there pros and cons, however, the economic conditions set the tone for how well they can work.

Mkmky/Shirley Submitted by mkmky on Sat, 26/05/2012 - 11:51am. Having contributed in to the system(at one time averaging £6000.00 monthly)I feel ashamed that I am signing on and dependant on £71.00 a week,no housing or any other benefit,but with that goes no training,no support and it seems that the whole WP/JCP mantra is it is not our problem that you remain unemployed it is yours!I recently was sent on a mandatory interview 62 miles away(I had to pay for travel, but got reimbursed)I questioned the validity of this job,you must attend or face a 6 month sanction..OK,do you realise that this is a job for only 4 hours? Yes..Do you realise the duration for this job is for 1 day?..Yes.. Train fare is £16.80 return and the job pays £24.40..Are you serious? Any work is better than none..You must sign off and after the job has ended you will have to start a new claim..I cleaned a public loo,but first I had buy steel toed boots(£35.00 submitted to JCP) such a joke! Firstly you would not be sent 62 miles for a 4 hour job lasting 1 day, you absolutely will not be made to take a job that leaves you worse off, this is a completely fictitious example, it would never happen. Second you say you would face a 6 month sanction, incorrect unless you have previously underwent a 2 week then a 4 week sanction. [Moderated]

Gis a job
As stated if you have a job offer I do not see a provider saying no, too many people ask for training and remain unemployed. I agree that for some positions you need the qualification first but usually you need experience as well.
A recent example, female 24, llevel 2 qualification in care, needed level 3 for a job, provider spoe with employer,agreed to repay the full cost of the qualification once person was in post for 3 months.
Risk and reward for all parties, end result, still there 6 months later, has the qualification and employer has a good worker and is out of pocket.
Compare that with the many young guys who want a joinery course when there are no jobs, total waste of time and money

@ Voice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se_Rein

You say:
"Therese rein does not own ingeus.
Ingeus is 50% owned by Deloitte
She is the uk md
The Australian business was sold in 2007 and she has nothing to do with it
She has not invested her personal wealth in The Work Programme
The JV with Deloitte was set up for The Work Programme, Deloitte bankrolled the bid"

Are you suggesting that Deloitte own or control 100% of the equity in Ingeus UK and that Therese Rein has no equity stake in the thing at all? Why would she lend both her own name and her own company brand-name to a business in which she has no personal stake? Why is she still one of the Directors of the business with the brand-name "Ingeus Australia" or whatever the Aussie end of Ingeus is called?"

It'll be interesting to see what Ms Rein does in 2013, actually, out in Australia where she actually lives. She lives in Queensland because Kevin Rudd is a native Queenslander and he is one of the Federal MPs for QLD.

Australia is unusual amongst Commonwealth countries in that it has a written Constitution. The Constitution requires them to hold a General Election once every three years and the next one is in 2013. Until fairly recently, Kevin Rudd was the Foereign Minister in the present Govt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Rudd

Rudd is rumoured to be planning to stand against Julia Gillard again in 2013. If he does so then Ms Rein will have to consider her own position again, it seems to me. My sister and mother both live in Oz so I am interested in Aussie current affairs.

However, what Ms Rein does in Australia is only indirectly relevant to what she does with Ingeus UK. She is rumoured to have a personal net worth of over £1bn GBP - far more than Emma Harrison. Ms Rein also has very much stronger political connections all over the world than Ms Harrison has.

You told me the other day that there are question marks over the Ingeus Deloitte bid for the WP scheme in the UK. Their competitors are wondering how th eJV can expect to make money, considering their bid. (I've heard the same thing, independently of you, but I am not interested in the details because Ingeus Deloitte have no presence in Hampshire.)

Maybe the UK WP Project will turn out to be a financial flop for the UK-based JV. It is equally possible, though, that the JV will turn out to have out-smarted all their other competitors in the UK-based W2W industry. Only time will tell about this.

I'll tell you what, though. I'm not a gambler, temperamentally, but if I were then I'd bet on Ms Rein and Deloitte. I wouldn't put any money on Ms Harrison & A4E.

WP,It was actually 58 miles,plus 4 miles to the train station,the "job" was posted on the JCP look under SA10 and I did do this,the problem with people like you are you think like IDS it is all the fault of the unemployed,further the "job" consisted of cleaning a public loo that the council workers would not do(health and safety) [Moderated]

I recently was sent on a mandatory interview 62 miles away(I had to pay for travel, but got reimbursed)I questioned the validity of this job,you must attend or face a 6 month sanction..OK,do you realise that this is a job for only 4 hours? Yes..Do you realise the duration for this job is for 1 day?..Yes.. Train fare is £16.80 return and the job pays £24.40..Are you serious? Any work is better than none..You must sign off and after the job has ended you will have to start a new claim..I cleaned a public loo,but first I had buy steel toed boots(£35.00 submitted to JCP) such a joke! must be a joke temp job has the rules changed? we dont have to take temp jobs? 62 miles away? when you do temp work if its not over i think 13 weeks you just do a rapid reclaim give people £500 for what? will solve nowt i read this week that jsa is going to be paid every 4 weeks is this true? i have a temp job to start on 10 june so when the job ends i will have to wait 4 weeks for my claim to start again? i dont know if i could make it waiting 4 weeks i know loads of people who do temp work and they could not wait 4 weeks with no money

WP.as for the sanction,yes last december I was 6 minuites late for a meeting,this was why a 6 month sanction was presented.

Highpark,yes it is a joke,as I have now had to re-sign on I am no longer (aligned with the WP)this basically means that I can now claim travel expenses,but the WP refuses to do this,with the WP I arrive at 0945 have a brain numbing session and are released...1415 JCP..last bus leaves at 1430(school run)wait till 1645 home at 1745 wasted day. [Moderated]

Highpark,yes it is a bloody joke,as I have now had to re-sign on I am no longer (aligned with the WP)this basically means that I can now claim travel expenses,but the WP refuses to do this,with the WP I arrive at 0945 have a brain numbing session and are released...1415 JCP..last bus leaves at 1430(school run)wait till 1645 home at 1745 wasted day.

Lazycow
Therese rein is worth approx £175m, nowhere near the billion you claim, she made her money when she sold the australian arm of the business.
She does not "own" ingeus as you seem to think.

The former prime minister and foreign minister, now a backbencher, updated his pecuniary interest register on May 3 to declare wife Therese Rein's registered directorships in Ingeus Australasia Pty Ltd and Ingeus Australia Pty Ltd.

The change in the pecuniary interest register follows Ingeus's acquisition of organisational development and employee-assistance provider Assure Programs last August.

The move marked a re-entry for Ms Rein into the Australian market after she sold out of her Australian employment services interests in 2007 to avoid any perceived conflict of interest after Mr Rudd took over the ALP leadership. She has announced she is staying out of the employment-services market after signing non-compete clauses when she sold out of Ingeus's Australian arm.

The Australian understands the business-psychology operations have no federal government contracts but have conducted some services for state governments and private clients.

After selling out of the Australian employment services market, Ms Rein concentrated on Britain and France and her companies have won significant contracts in both countries as they try to shrug off the effects of recession.

Save you having to look it up, enjoy

Mkmky
My previous comment stands, never would you be asked to attend 62 miles for a 1 day temp job, it just does not happen, now if you decided of your own free will that is a different matter.
You are making this up, the rules would not even allow this.
If you have been sanctioned for 6 months then you must be a serial offender, you do not get a 6 month sanction fist time, again you are not telling the full story.
Once you are on The Work Programme you stay on it, if you receive a sanction you must still participate.
Travel expenses are paid by the provider, end of.
You do not make any sense with your posts.

@ voice

Submitted by Voice of WP on Sat, 26/05/2012 - 9:44am.

The sheep comment is about people bleating on about scrapping The Work Programme without any sensible alternatives, which piece of my own advice are you referring to.
There are no misinterpretations, my comments are based on posts on here.
Take your time, read through it and come back at your leisure

PATRONISING!!!
Thankyou for allowing me to "take my time" - news for you - I don't need your permission.

The advice I was referring to was "please try and keep it civil" - that is why I quoted it back at you!

There have been suggestions - some you may approve of, most you don't.

There have been a lot of relevant comments made - most you choose to ignore.

Try this - when something isn't working it's best to stop doing it and try something else.

The WP isn't working.....

@voice

the example you provide is a great outcome for provider,employer and employee regardless of the state\private models. i agree sending ?,???s to training courses regardless of the training merit joinery,c.s.c.s cards(regardless of employment background),stone wall building is a waste of every ones time and money.But do say a more balanced approach is needed for viable training and when a single qualification is not needed i will give a fictional example

female 24 from a mixed retail\admin back ground(entry level) referred to W.P 1st training provided NVQ retail skills.no employment 2ed training nvq in business and administration.still no employment 3ed training nvq in customer service.she finds a job as 37HPW shop assistant entering the workforce at the same level as she left.

she leaves the W.P but now her earning potential and skills in her employment field have increased decreasing the risk of future unemployment and increasing the promotion potential.This system of targeted prior employment training will produce well rounded individuals with training in there future employment sectors with a net loss to the provider.if i wish to enter admin but ask for training and ask for a c.s.c.s card,security,F.L.T licence and telecommunications i would expect to be rejected even if funds were limitless but realistic training like i have spelt out would be a great boon if available to those who do not need tinkering around the edges.

Back to the original question - "What w2w scheme would work?"
Up to 2006 New Deal was working quite well. Genuine training, along with work placements, was delivered by organisations qualified to do it, under contracts organised regionally by JCP. It was flexible and locally relevant, and encompassed everything from quite high-powered IT qualifications to basic numeracy and literacy. No one was forced into it. Privatisation imposed a disastrous one-size-fits-all contract which alienated clients and delivered very poor results. Now we have what is supposed to be "tailored support" but which we all know isn't.
What would "work" depends on what you want to achieve.

And where is your proof that The Work Programme is not working.
Recent results show it is.
The fact I post on here shows I do not ignore comments, some of them I do chose not to comment on.
Yip, I do not agree with everything on here, that's what sparks the debates, not wrong with that.
So let's scrap The Work Programme ? Is that the answer, it is less than 1 year old and is ahead of prior schemes despite a worsening economy and more people being referred.
My opinion is that it is working, you will not agree but let's wait for the figures to be released the. We can see if it is working or not, for the time being you do not have the facts to back your comment up, hence why people like me challenge baseless assumptions.
Didn't say you needed my permission, that's your assumption.

Gis a job

I agree, proper training leading to a proper job is what is needed, that's the point I make and I am glad you agree.
Not sure if your example is made up or real but we could all quote something to back our argument.
Your example may have resulted in said person going into a job that she may have been able to enter 12 months previously without the qualifications, it may have been a tougher economy meant her choices became limited even with qualifications, but the fact she is in work and has more qualifications may help her retain the job or move up the ladder.

@W2W_Observer

"Welfare benefits remain voluntary, it is just that those who volunteer to be on Job Search Allowance are expected to be seeking a Job. There should be no need for sanctions as those who volunteer for the benefit should understand that the benefit comes with additional support services to help them into work. The issue of private sector or third sector remains a non-issue, it remains the quality of the support services available to the job seeker. The Work Programme is similar to many other programmes around the world, each have there pros and cons, however, the economic conditions set the tone for how well they can work."

And so? You have told me what you think the facts are but you have NOT told me what you think the solution might be.

Would you care to elaborate & clarify?

@ Voice

"After selling out of the Australian employment services market, Ms Rein concentrated on Britain and France and her companies have won significant contracts in both countries as they try to shrug off the effects of recession."

Earlier, you claimed that Ms Rein has no financial interest in Ingeus UK. Now you quote "The Australian" newspaper, which contradicts your own claim.

Why do you want to present "evidence" which suggests that you have been wrong? It is not like you to admit to fallibility, after all.

Hi consigna4ed_to_...

"Try this - when something isn't working it's best to stop doing it and try something else."

I could not agree with you more. The words "shovel," "hole" and "deeper" all spring to mind - not necessarily in that order!

However, is is worth wasting your own undoubted and considerable ability on opponents who are not worthy opponents and who therefore are also not worth the bother?

@Voice

"And where is your proof that The Work Programme is not working.
Recent results show it is."

Recent results actually show that the WP scheme has not achieved any better than the "deadweight" rate in the first 6-9 months of its existence.

The apologists for this fact say that it is too soon to predict whether or not the WP scheme will be able to do any better than that during the first two years of its life.

@ Voice

"Not sure if your example is made up or real but we could all quote something to back our argument.
Your example may have resulted in said person going into a job that she may have been able to enter 12 months previously without the qualifications, it may have been a tougher economy meant her choices became limited even with qualifications, but the fact she is in work and has more qualifications may help her retain the job or move up the ladder."

Right. So the woman's recently-obtained qualifications might well prove to be worth the cost of obtaining them, according to you.

Therefore why are they NOT being offered by the WP scheme's providers?

WP,denial is like looking in the "Black Box" you can spout the party line,but as your existance and living depend on this I understand your defence of this you will be insisting that you are right until you are claiming benefits yourself.

@LC
Thanks for your kind words.
The point you make about the results is valid - and one I was going to make myself (indeed have done elsewhere). I really have better things to do on a sunny Saturday night so after a hard day at the allotment (Arbeit Macht Frei!) I am off to a barbecue where I will consume unfeasible amounts of alcoholic beverages (does that mean I wll be reported for substance abuse/alcoholism?) and try to forget about the WP and all its (if you'll forgive the word) works.

Consig,raise a glass.(it is not banned yet)

Lazycow

You state Earlier, you claimed that Ms Rein has no financial interest in Ingeus UK. Now you quote "The Australian" newspaper, which contradicts your own claim.

You claimed she owned ingeus, I pointed out she was the md and the partnership with Deloitte, I did NOT say she had no interest.

You seem to be slipping, that's a few times I have had to correct you

Submitted by Lazy Cow on Sat, 26/05/2012 - 6:12pm.
@ Voice

"Not sure if your example is made up or real but we could all quote something to back our argument.
Your example may have resulted in said person going into a job that she may have been able to enter 12 months previously without the qualifications, it may have been a tougher economy meant her choices became limited even with qualifications, but the fact she is in work and has more qualifications may help her retain the job or move up the ladder."

Right. So the woman's recently-obtained qualifications might well prove to be worth the cost of obtaining them, according to you.

Therefore why are they NOT being offered by the WP scheme's providers

Lazycow, you generalise yet again, my company does offer training where appropriate and I know loads more providers who do the same, just because you cannot get every piece of training you want does not mean it is not offered where appropriate.
The big difference is I see a balanced view, whereas you see it only through jobseekers glasses, I see the big picture, you don't, I base my argument on fact, you are yours on assumptions.

@Voice

What training? I haven't asked for any training since I've been on the WP scheme.

"The big difference is I see a balanced view, whereas you see it only through jobseekers glasses, I see the big picture, you don't, I base my argument on fact, you are yours on assumptions."

That which you call "a balanced view" and "fact" are actually only statements of your own personal opinions. Your opinion also persuades you to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong because you find it impossible to believe that you might not be right 100% of the time.

My "opinions" are based on the fact I see both sides of the argument, whereas you only see one.
Sorry, where i say you I mean in the general sense of job seekers

@Voice I know this has become a private discussion, but can I ask how you "see both side of the argument"? Have you been long-term unemployed?

Nope I work for a prime, it is absolutely not private, I want everyone to see all points of view

@Voice Would you then concede that you can't see both sides of the argument, if the argument is with someone who is on the receiving end of w2w?
I have been on both sides. Having had a long spell of unemployment, I was able to understand the attitudes of clients when I worked in the industry (I didn't go straight from the one to other other, by the way). With all due respect, I don't think you can do that.

What I am saying is that I see advisors, training providers, specialist providers, jcp, dwp, job seekers etc. i know what was contained in the bid, i get to see some comparative data-therefore I believe I see a bigger, wider picture than a job seeker, my opinion of course.

I would agree that you have more facts at your command than the average jobseeker has; but the average jobseeker will have dealt with many of the agencies you mention, and have a different perspective. And that perspective needs to be factored in when you denounce their opinions.

Not necessarily, some have argued they only ever see a provider, no training, certainly no contact with dwp and almost certainly will never have seen a bid document nor be privy to some of the figures.
My point is that some people make wild accusations about how much money a provider gets paid or what constitutes a black box approach etc without knowing the facts.mi still believe a provider has a better, not entirely exclusive, view of what is going on.

@Submitted by W2W_Observer on Sat, 26/05/2012 - 2:04pm.
"Welfare benefits remain voluntary, it is just that those who volunteer to be on Job Search Allowance are expected to be seeking a Job. There should be no need for sanctions as those who volunteer for the benefit should understand that the benefit comes with additional support services to help them into work. The issue of private sector or third sector remains a non-issue, it remains the quality of the support services available to the job seeker. The Work Programme is similar to many other programmes around the world, each have there pros and cons, however, the economic conditions set the tone for how well they can work.
.................................
w2w observer, can you expand on the job search allowance and the voluntary aspect please

@voice

"Not necessarily, some have argued they only ever see a provider, no training, certainly no contact with dwp and almost certainly will never have seen a bid document nor be privy to some of the figures.My point is that some people make wild accusations about how much money a provider gets paid or what constitutes a black box approach etc without knowing the facts.mi still believe a provider has a better, not entirely exclusive, view of what is going on."

your statement remind me of Lieutenant-General Sir Lancelot Kiggell quote "Good God, did we really send men to fight in that?" the point of view that is gained from looking at reports and discussions with people that share the same goals who have the "facts" is very different to those at the receiving end. after reading this article(see link) many of the points made if raised on this website will be lambasted as untrue\biased with no "facts". I can see many of my own experiences in this article but does Amelia Gentleman have a bias or without the "facts" to make a valid judgement on her experiences of the W.P

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/31/unemployment-cameron-work-...

@Voice At least try to see the process, and the experience, from the point of view of the client, and not always assume that you know best.

Sorry to which posts are your posts referring to, they appear rather random in the order of the previous post.
Happy to respond once I know what I am responding to.

Of course it's working!
(But only if you're a graduate of the J. Goebbels school of statistics)

This from Saturday's Guardian

However, The Observer has learned that a release of statistics on the outcomes of the mandatory work programme had been due this week but is to be delayed, raising concerns about its efficacy in helping the country's 887,000 long-term unemployed – defined as being jobless for over a year.

Critics also claim the move is an indication of the panic within government over the failure of ministers' various schemes to tackle long-term unemployment, which is at its highest level in 16 years.

Full article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/26/work-free-programme-expand...

And to quote from one of the many comments:

"The inactivity rate for those aged from 16 to 64 was 23.0 per cent, down 0.1 on the quarter. There were 9.25 million economically inactive people aged from 16 to 64, down 35,000 on the quarter."

"There were 457,000 job vacancies in the three months to April 2012, down 7,000 on the three months to January 2012 and down 12,000 on a year earlier. "

WHEN WILL PEOPLE IN POWER REALISE THAT THE CAUSE OF JOBLESSNESS IS LACK OF JOBS?

Submitted by gis_a_job on Sun, 27/05/2012 - 9:29am.
@voice

your statement remind me of Lieutenant-General Sir Lancelot Kiggell quote "Good God, did we really send men to fight in that?" the point of view that is gained from looking at reports and discussions with people that share the same goals who have the "facts" is very different to those at the receiving end. after reading this article(see link) many of the points made if raised on this website will be lambasted as untrue\biased with no "facts". I can see many of my own experiences in this article but does Amelia Gentleman have a bias or without the "facts" to make a valid judgement on her experiences of the W.P

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/31/unemployment-cameron-work-...

......................................................................
So what she saw was biased? I am reading that she reported what she observed that day in the offices, I accept that a job seeker may have a different interpretation of what went on during the visit but not sure I am getting your point.
My point still stands and that is I am often basing my comments on facts not assumptions, a job seeker may not have access to the same facts, in the same way I am not present at say a jcp interview, in such a case I would never suggest that what took place as being untrue as I was not there, I may have an opinion as to why something might have been said, I would not just rubbish the facts as reported by the Jobseeker, this often happens on here though where the Jobseeker rubbishes the truth eg someone has been arguing that a referral fee is paid on The Work Programme , I quoted the facts and know I am 100% correct in quoting that there is absolutely no referral fee paid.

@Voice

"w2w observer, can you expand on the job search allowance and the voluntary aspect please"

I can help with your question. The Government Propaganda is that when someone becomes unemployed, the State does them a favour by providing a small subsistence allowance each week. In return for this favour, the Government expects the person in recipt of the favour to work for it in various ways.

This piece of propaganda - which is all that it is - is designed to get the "Daily Mail readers" on the side of the Government and to get them to feel hostile towards JSA claimants.

Even the "Daily Mail readers" didn't fall for it. They retorted, en masse, in the various newspaper 'comments sections' that the State has been collecting taxes etc off many of the JSA claimants for a number of years. So it is not a "favour." It is a bought & paid for contractual bargain and many of them have commented that IDS must be a blithering idiot if he thinks people can't tell the difference between propaganda and the truth.

The net effect of that particular piece of propaganda is that it has alienated more tax-payers than it has attracted. People are livid about the notion that successive Governments might have been collecting their taxes under false pretences.

Sorry what is job search allowance, are you both meaning job SEEKERS allowance.?

Voice,it is obvious that you have a vested interest in the WP continuing at what ever cost,your paycheck is your motivation. As for being concerned about the unemployed and having no bias? try selling that to someone else.

@Voice

"Sorry what is job search allowance, are you both meaning job SEEKERS allowance?"

Yes.

"The Work Programme must keep going.
It is moving people off benefits and into work- fact"

Fact? I humbly suggest that it is a fiction.

to respond to the OP, can I suggest incredibly obvious solution to the problem D:

D) Create more jobs.

btw, can I request that the following incredibly foolish statement in its many forms stops appearing on these forums:

"If all you need is say a forklift licence and you have an absolute guarantee of a job with an employer who is prepared to confirm there is a long term job available if you had said certificate, the providers pays out a few hundred pounds, you get a job"

Cart before Horse. In 5 years I never once saw someone in the position that they had been guarranteed a job pending them obtaining a qualification of any kind. Someone WITH the qualification was offered the job.

"Welfare benefits remain voluntary" Pardon? What egregious nonsense.

"Welfare benefits remain voluntary" Pardon? What egregious nonsense.

..............

Totally agree, I have asked the poster and lazycow to explain this one, also they seem to think it is job search allowance and that participation when on jsa is voluntary, not sure if the poster means you volunteered for the benefits in the first place. Interested to see the answer to this oe.

@Voice
"I would like to see the evidence that backs these figures up before commenting."

IDS ? CG ? The Daily Mail ?

The Gov. have been asked to show how the figures were arrived at, and believe it or not they can't say. So using the Gov's very own figures.

Immigration 200,000, (recently gone up to 250k)
New jobs advertised to just JCP, approx 10,000/day = 3million per year.
Even if every single immigrant got one of these new jobs = 200k/3M*100% = 6.7%.

The way the gov. must of done it.
NET new jobs = +200,000, /year.
Immigration = +210,000, /year.
Unemployment rate = steady.
Therefore 105% of new jobs were take by up immigrants. = Nonsence.

@grapling

i do not follow your maths if your numbers are true by the 21/26 of January that block of jobs taken by immigrants will be filled and the rest of the year will be taken by U.K workers even if all 250,00 take 2 jobs it still leaves 2.5 million jobs a year for u.k workers. if the % are true i think the numbers would be reversed.

a little clarification please

JSA is always voluntary, did you think it was manditory if you're not working.???

I know a few unemployed ppl not on it, because their partner has a part-time job for instance. If you already have enough NI it's just not worth all the hassle.

edit: You can get it for first 26 weeks - even if your partner has a full-time job.

3 million jobs to jcp???

JSA is always voluntary, did you think it was manditory if you're not working.???

I know a few unemployed ppl not on it, because their partner has a part-time job for instance. If you already have enough NI it's just not worth all the hassle.

edit: You can get it for first 26 weeks - even if your partner has a full-time job.

.....................

You do not have to sign on for benefits, that's the voluntary part, if you decide to sign on after that you play by the rules if you want the benefit, that's the mandatory part.

Submitted by Grappling on Sun, 27/05/2012 - 3:05pm.
@Voice
"I would like to see the evidence that backs these figures up before commenting."

IDS ? CG ? The Daily Mail ?

The Gov. have been asked to show how the figures were arrived at, and believe it or not they can't say. So using the Gov's very own figures.

Immigration 200,000, (recently gone up to 250k)
New jobs advertised to just JCP, approx 10,000/day = 3million per year.
Even if every single immigrant got one of these new jobs = 200k/3M*100% = 6.7%.

The way the gov. must of done it.
NET new jobs = +200,000, /year.
Immigration = +210,000, /year.
Unemployment rate = steady.
Therefore 105% of new jobs were take by up immigrants. = Nonsence.

..............................................

Not all migrants are here to work, so the figure needs to show those who migrated for work reasons only, this is far less than the figure quoted as a
large proportion are here for study ( and I know those here for "study")is a seperate argument),0 even so your figures make no sense at all.

Ah yes, that strange definition of 'voluntary' that means 'something you CHOOSE to do to avoid starving to death'.

@Voice

"Totally agree, I have asked the poster and lazycow to explain this one, also they seem to think it is job search allowance and that participation when on jsa is voluntary, not sure if the poster means you volunteered for the benefits in the first place. Interested to see the answer to this oe."

I did NOT tell you that JSA is supposed to be "voluntary." I actually told you that the idea that it might be is pure propaganda. Please STOP your practice of trying to twist things to your own argumentative advantage. It merely makes you seem either very stupid or very manipulative & crafty but either way, it will not work with me.

new
Submitted by Brennan on Sun, 27/05/2012 - 4:20pm.
Ah yes, that strange definition of 'voluntary' that means 'something you CHOOSE to do to avoid starving to death'.
.......................

Rather dramatic, people starve to death in Africa, here in the UK it usually means they cannot afford to upgrade from a 50" plasma to the latest 3d TV, get real.
If you were in that state you would go and get a job, some chose to live on £71 quid a week and make it clear they will not work, have yet to hear of anyone starving to death in the UK because they were on JSA, care to provide the link to that one.

@Voice

"Totally agree, I have asked the poster and lazycow to explain this one, also they seem to think it is job search allowance and that participation when on jsa is voluntary, not sure if the poster means you volunteered for the benefits in the first place. Interested to see the answer to this oe."

I did NOT tell you that JSA is supposed to be "voluntary." I actually told you that the idea that it might be is pure propaganda. Please STOP your practice of trying to twist things to your own argumentative advantage. It merely makes you seem either very stupid or very manipulative & crafty but either way, it will not work with me.

....................

I think you will see you agreed with the original post, re read it and tell me I am wrong.

@Voice "Rather dramatic, people starve to death in Africa, here in the UK it usually means they cannot afford to upgrade from a 50" plasma to the latest 3d TV, get real.
If you were in that state you would go and get a job, some chose to live on £71 quid a week and make it clear they will not work, have yet to hear of anyone starving to death in the UK because they were on JSA, care to provide the link to that one."

It's statements like that which annoy the h**l out of me. There is absolutely no point in trying to engage with someone with attitudes like that.

@brennan

"Cart before Horse. In 5 years I never once saw someone in the position that they had been guarranteed a job pending them obtaining a qualification of any kind. Someone WITH the qualification was offered the job"
..................
I gave a true example earlier of a job obtained without the qualification but with a guarantee that it would be funded.
I have seen many examples where the lack of a certificate did not stop the person getting the job but the guarantee that a provider would fund it once in the job was the clincher, so this argument will continue you say it does not happen, I say it does happen. Opposing views based on ones another's experiences, just because you do not believe in it is no reason to try and gag people.

It is al about the effort a job seeker puts in, if I found a job that I could do but did not have the requisite certificate I would still apply and point out I could get funding for it, if I were an employer I would suggest that shows some forward thinking.
Too many people take the view that they will not even bother to apply as " they have no chance" I see it as more of an attitude than an lack of a certificate, only my opinion of course.

Submitted by Bourne on Sun, 27/05/2012 - 4:36pm.
@Voice "Rather dramatic, people starve to death in Africa, here in the UK it usually means they cannot afford to upgrade from a 50" plasma to the latest 3d TV, get real.
If you were in that state you would go and get a job, some chose to live on £71 quid a week and make it clear they will not work, have yet to hear of anyone starving to death in the UK because they were on JSA, care to provide the link to that one."

It's statements like that which annoy the h**l out of me. There is absolutely no point in trying to engage with someone with attitudes like that.

..................

As do statement about people starving to death because of JSA.
I come into contact with jobseekers who do complain that JSA does not allow them to upgrade to the latest phone or buy the latest game, I hear it regularly so do not preach to me about people starving to death, that is an absolute insult to people who are truly starving to death.
Comments like that are simply attention seeking, aimed at stirringu up trouble.
I notice you did not provide the link.

Voice

"Rather dramatic, people stave to death in Africa, here in the UK it usually means they cannot afford to upgrade from a 50" lplasma to the latest 3d TV, get real."

I presume that you mean "starve," not "stave?"

What do you know about the problems in Africa, pray?

As for your nonsense about TV sets, I don't even own one and have no wish to get one so what the hell are you burbling about?

For me personally, broadband and a land line phone are far more important because I have a personal need to remain in close touch with my close relatives in Australia 24/7. My mother is now 91 and although she is still reasonably well at the moment, it is crucial for me to ensure that my Aussie sister can contact me 24/7 by whatever means she thinks will be best. I also have a mobile phone for no other reason.

So how DARE you suggest that my only concern is TVs? I strongly suggest that you quit your disreputable stereotyping of other people immediately and that you apologise to me for it.

Yes of course I meant starve.
My comment was a general one based on job seekers I have come into contact with, if it does not include you don't be so touchy, on the other hand it his ok for you to stereotype just about every group you have ever come into contact with.
I am not interested one bit in the fact you may or may not have a TV or that you have relatives somewhere else on the planet. Please keep your personal comments out of the posts, they just take up space and add no value.
As for Africa, perhaps if you had a TV you would see that people are literally starving to death, that's what I know.

@ Voice "Comments like that are simply attention seeking, aimed at stirring up trouble.
I notice you did not provide the link."
If that's aimed at me I don't understand it. But then, I don't want to. You're the one who knows all about jobseekers.
Don't bother responding, I'm out of here.

Goodbye

The immigrants don't all arrive on the same day.
Assuming a working year of 300days (excl. weekends/bankhols).

On average 10k jobs lost/finish each day - (1k of them retail jobs for example)
On average 10k new vacancies appear each day and 10k are filled each day.[but*]

On average new 650 immigrants arrive each day, (making +200k for the whole year.)
So even if all of them 650 get a job it's 650 out of 10k each day leaving 9,400 for Brits.
650 out of 10,000 = 6.5% (approx. because a few of the other 9,400 will be 'previously arrived' immigrants)

[but*] Of the 10k new vacancies created, and those filled each day are not all the same ones of course, some simple ones 'will' be advertised and filled that very same day, more specialized roles will take weeks/months between the ad/interview/start.
If you take the average gap between being advertised, and being filled as 45 days you get 45days times 10k vacancies = 450,000 vacancies at any one time.
The 450k is the churn.

"These reforms are about bringing them back in. I want them to be supported and ready to take up the 450,000 vacancies which even today, as we begin to emerge out of recession, are available in the economy."
IDS 11 Nov 10

Poor bloke, you can't 'use up' churn.

If you say so lol

@Grappling

thanks i still do not understand your point 6.5% of jobs taken by foreign workers does not seem a major impact on a economy as big as ours even if its bumping along.if i lose a job to a better qualified worker who is foreign that's life i have done it myself in the Celtic tiger boom i worked in Ireland for 4 years because i had the skills and experience there workers lacked Ireland had a unemployment rate of 4.8% while i worked there your place of birth should have no impact on where you work(legally)that path only leads to misery for us all

Voice of WP on Sun, 27/05/2012 - 4:07pm.

"3 million jobs to jcp???"

If you really do work in w2w, then it's no wonder it's falling apart. Don't know why I bother, but here u go.

"the JCP database is the largest in the UK with over 10,000 new vacancies every working day"
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/nl1/newsroom/dg_186249

you wanted to check whether the 'over 10,000 vacancies
per day' figure quoted by Chris Grayling on the 26 January 2011 was
correct. Over the past 12 months the average number of vacancies
notified to Jobcentre Plus each working day has remained at over 10,000
each month, with a high of 22,700 in October 2010 and a low of 11,100 in
January 2010.
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/job_vacancies_received_by_dwp

So although the number of job vacancies at any one time may be less than half a million, over the year probably five to six million people start a "new" job.
http://www.channel4.com/news/job-creation-alone-will-not-solve-unemployment

I've re-read my posts, can't find anything obviously wrong.
Time for a doggy-walk in the park.

Submitted by gis_a_job on Sun, 27/05/2012 - 6:04pm.

"thanks i still do not understand your point 6.5% of jobs taken by foreign workers does not seem a major impact on a economy"

Yes, that's point. The Gov. try to make it look like 90%!

"Figures uncovered by Mr Field show that in the first year of the Coalition, 87 per cent of the 400,000 newly created jobs have gone to immigrants, because Britons are too lazy to chase work."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005691/Migrants-taking-9-10-new...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005691/Migrants-taking-9-10-new...

"Every year, many millions of jobs change hands, large numbers are created, and large numbers disappear. In good times, slightly more are created than disappear. Of all these jobs those changing hands, and new ones being created last year around 85 per cent went to those born here (down from 91 per cent in 1997) and around 15 per cent go to those born abroad (up from 9 per cent), according to the Labour Force Survey."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7204008/right-to-reply-why-do-so-...

A Realistic 15% here.
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/09/03/eighty-five-per-cent-of-new-jo...

Your link is 2 years old
Does it take into account multiple job postings?

"108,000 vacancies for bank residential care staff for one company that were notified in one week" source cesi

From the guardian when exploring the website " the number of unique jobs in the data set is 72,000 and the number of jobs if you sum for each region is 219,323" This represents a scrape of about half the jobs but what it shows is the same jobs created multiple times

3million seems high, what is of more interest is the number of unique vacancies at any one time, after all if 1 job is posted 20 times it may well show up as 20 vacancies but only 1person gets a job

Perhaps you can now see why I queried

Perhaps Paul Bivand could shed light on this as he is the author of some excellent reports and analysis in ths area.

@Voice

"My comment was a general one based on job seekers I have come into contact with, if it does not include you don't be so touchy, on the other hand it his ok for you to stereotype just about every group you have ever come into contact with.
I am not interested one bit in the fact you may or may not have a TV or that you have relatives somewhere else on the planet. Please keep your personal comments out of the posts, they just take up space and add no value.
As for Africa, perhaps if you had a TV you would see that people are literally starving to death, that's what I know."

How DARE you be so ignorant and so rude?

For your information it is actually possible to watch most things on TV nowadays via the Internet. It is also possible to read the relevant Learned Journals by the same method.

I am interested to hear that you don't give a damn about your customer's personal situation. That shows that you have no interest in anything except profit for your own employer, does it not? So where's all the cuddly "caring and sharing" that you have been yapping about with a total absence of candour?

"Generalise" means "stereotype."

So get on with it. Apologise for your rudeness without any further delay.

Voice of WP on Sun, 27/05/2012 - 7:43pm.

Does it take into account multiple job postings?

Yes. Real jobs, real people in/out.
It's has been reported as around 2.7million for years, but with all the short time temp & part-time jobs now, I'd it expect to be over 3million - real jobs but short term ones.

If you included multiple postings from other agencys jobsites and fake CV collectors, you'd probably get it +250million and -250million per year.

"Perhaps Paul Bivand could shed light on this as he is the author of some excellent reports and analysis in ths area"
Didn't know that, could be interesting.

LC,Actually it varies Amazon(also known as the open prison)requires that you have a pulse and that is about it,they are one of the biggest employers around here.Before christmas the JCP sends hundreds down there (temp agency)and it is mandatory to attend I was hired two days before I was to attend a Nebosh course,worked to the Amazon mantra and was "Promoted to Ambassador" training new hires,plenty of mandatory overtime,frisked two times daily(after clocking out)and two days before christmas went to work and security badge was void,asked security whats up? talk to your agency(agency rep is inside the building)650 people let go,no notice. [Moderated]

where have I mentioned a long list of requirements Where did it say I met him Have you never heard of manual pick and pack?? Hand picking goods, sometime using manual pump trucks(which do not require a licence) Why do you insist in trying to pick things apart and find negatives in every story. There is a ratio of "workers" to forklifts within such an environment and clearly there is not a need for everyone to have a fork lift licence. My prior career (yes people can and do change jobs) was Warehouse and Transpot Manager, again I know what I am talking about

My stance always has, and always will be to try and get peoople into work, why on earth would I suddenly change that and lose 16 opportunities by following the "advice" on here. You just could not make some of this stuff up (although I clearly did) Please take the time to read, digest and understand the posts, you just copy and paste and jump in, I do not really believe you believed my post but you are now trying to cover up your embarassment  [Moderated]

Will you all just give it a rest! 1) if you believe everything (or anything for that matter) that people post here you need to take a reality check. 2) humour is a personal thing and doesn't come across if the person reading your amusing postings doesn't share your sense of humour  3) if you can't stop yourself responding to a post where someone is purposefully winding you up, then your have a touch of OCD and should really take a break from technology for a while. I dare any of you to not post anything else on this forum for the next 48 hours. [Moderated]

LC, firstly please stop responding to every post that is directed at me, it has nothing to do with you. I do not want your advice, thoughts, assumptions etc etc George is able enough to respond to me if he wants. I have no intention of emailing George as I have nothing I wish to talk to him about regarding my private life. [Moderated]

LC I will let things take their course

Great last post Stephw2w.

I think from time to time some forget that this is primarily a site for those WORKING in the W2W industry. People not employed in the industry are of course very welcome to look, join, participate in discussion and seek advice and help. But ultimately they are ‘guests’.

Comment has been made about the legal and medical professions and 'lies' being unacceptable in those. My pre W2W background is in the RAF. In the forces, of all personal attributes 'integrity' is one of the most essential. However, a visitor to any squadron crew room would perhaps struggle to tell truth from fiction with all the 'banter' that is being exchanged. I have a surgeon friend and know that the almost 'sick' sense of humour between doctors when together can be seen as equally distasteful to an outsider. I don’t have any lawyer friends but would imagine that a gathering of lawyers would also exchange banter that to the outsider looking in may seem distasteful.

In any profession where there is pressure and exposure to the raw lives of people there is a need to be able to ‘download’ with your peers. The world has changed in that an internet forum is now a ‘place’ where people within a profession can do this.

Comment from moderator: I am disappointed that this post has been used to personally attack people and not offer constructive debate. This is against our terms and conditions. I have taken down thread that are offensive or meant to provoke. 

Hi Tyn

I am NOT getting at you personally in any way at all. However a few of the self-serving, complacent MYTHS that seem to abound amongst some of the people who work in the W2W industry need to be exploded once and for all.

The W2W industry is not a "profession." It is completely unregulated and unless it becomes tightly-regulated by Law it will remain a mere "industry." There is no prior standard of academic attainment involved. There is no requirement for any training of any sort either. There is no need for any Professional Indemnity insurance, no matter how much harm might be caused to a customer of the W2W industry. And so forth. In short, the thing simply does not have ANY of the characteristics of a "profession."

It is simply appalling that there is no regulation of the W2W industry in any way because it means that any Tom, Dick or Harry can exploit the industry's activities (qv the disgraceful A4E scandals) and mess up the psyches of its customers - including those of its most vulnerable customers - with total impunity, which facts amount to a seriously shabby disgrace imho.

One day, a W2W customer will win the Lottery, whereupon s/he may well sue his/her WP provider for any psychiatric injury that the ex-customer has suffered at the hands of the W2W industry. The Court may well upghold the ex-customer's complaint, in which case the Court can be expected to award very substantial damages against the WP Provider because this type of claim is a Personal Injury action.

Neither lawyers or doctors ever exchange professional gossip or "humour" on ANY forum that can be accessed by somebody who is not a member of the relevant profession. If the public can read it then the professionals are "on show" and that is all there is to it.

At the moment, the owners of Indus Delta seem to imagine that they can have it both ways - which merely underlines the lack of professionalism within the W2W industry, in my view

@LC If you've been following the front page not just the discussions, you might have noticed occasional posts reporting on progress in setting up a professional institute for the sector.

This is something where the owners of Indus Delta (Inclusion) have taken a lead with ERSA and other interested parties.

The front page usually has professional training offers - frequently from our linked venture Advance W2W online training.

In the UK, most professions are not restricted by law to people with specific qualifications - this is completely voluntary. There are a few professions that are restricted by law - lawyers and doctors and a few more, but most are not.

Many providers have used the qualifications provided for Careers staff, but this does not cover the full range of what provider staff need to know, hence the need for more appropriate standards and qualifications.

LC

I agree that the W2W Industry is one that should be better regulated, but don't be duped into thinking this would be a silver bullet to prevent fraud or the abuse of vulnerable clients. Take the care industry as an example, highly regulated, but rife with horror stories.

As a provider, we must supply the CVs of the client facing staff that work for us to the Prime, who I assume will have had to give assurances to the DWP that service is being delivered by appropriately skilled staff. The quality of delivery should be monitored by the Prime and DWP respectively. I do agree that there is no simple qualification out there that say specifically 'W2W Practitioner', as discussed above by Paul. However, it is important to point out that this isn't the type of work people come out of university and just start doing. The best advisors in my organisation are those with experience of life and preferably past unemployment. My best advisors are certainly the ones who have 'lived a bit' and the newly qualified Social Work graduate I once hired was a complete disaster – never again!.

"Neither lawyers or doctors ever exchange professional gossip or "humour" on ANY forum that can be accessed by somebody who is not a member of the relevant profession."

I beg to disagree. Go in to any pub near a hospital, school, Inn of Court etc. and I'm sure you will hear plenty of professional gossip or "humour". A pub is the best example of a pe-digital age ‘forum’ I know of this side of ancient Rome.

"Neither lawyers or doctors ever exchange professional gossip or "humour" on ANY forum that can be accessed by somebody who is not a member of the relevant profession."

Embarassing Bodies must be a figment of my imagination then.

There are many blogs out there in which professionals use dark humour with their colleagues. As a qualified teacher I use TES for information and resources and there are some "unprofessional" comments on there which would be taken in context by fellow professionals sharing experiences but less so by outsiders.

But back to the main point; more and more organisations are recruiting staff with PTLLS (minimum), CELTA, IAG 3 (minimum), ERS or similar qualifications or making it a contract stipulation that they must be achieved within a year. The W2W industry does need to become more professional but that process is underway.

Remember that DWP aren't paying for a social service, a psychiatric service, a health or well-being service, or a training service. They are paying solely for a service that moves its customers into sustained employment by whatever means necessary. That doesn't mean some of these elements shouldn't factor in what is delivered, but listening to Robert Devereux last week he doesn't seem to particularly care how it is done, or whether the customers like it. He wants people off benefits into work, end of.

As a quality assurance professional (with professional indemnity insurance I hasten to add) I take the issue of regulation and quality very seriously. The latest incarnation of welfare to work seems to be lacking a lot in this respect, but this is down to DWP, not the industry itself. DWP are relying on Primes to regulate their subcontractors and DWP then regulate the Primes. How effectively they will do this can be debated, but that is the system DWP have designed.

Ofsted (and ALI and TSC before them) inspected welfare to work provision up until the Work Programme and now don't inspect. Again, that the isn't a choice of anyone working in the industry - it's down to DWP and the government. That said, Ofsted won't stop poor provision (Tyn's example of the care industry being a classic one), but at least it is an outside body looking at the quality of service and value for money. Should they inspect WP? Damn right they should!

The quals highlighted by Bob have become the norm over the last few years, and the works around professionalisation has grown a pace. The industry collectively knows what needs to be done and is doing it.

Finally for today - unless someone explicitly states so on this forum that they work in the sector, don't assume they do. ID is no longer a forum solely for those who work in the industry. You also should not assume anything about someone's professionalism in the work place based on the opinions and views expressed on this site. People may post sensible, well thought out discussions but be an absolute incompetent in person. They may post completely illiterate, surreal and ridiculous posts here and be the best personal advisor or employment coach in the world.

And Bob .... an admission to watching Embarrassing Bodies .... well what can I say?

I don't watch it, I just know it exists! Anyway, it clashes with Peter Andre:My Life so I couldn't watch it.

Joke.

Hi Steph

"Remember that DWP aren't paying for a social service, a psychiatric service, a health or well-being service, or a training service. They are paying solely for a service that moves its customers into sustained employment by whatever means necessary. That doesn't mean some of these elements shouldn't factor in what is delivered, but listening to Robert Devereux last week he doesn't seem to particularly care how it is done, or whether the customers like it. He wants people off benefits into work, end of."

If a customer or ex-customer sues a WP Provider, claiming that the customer has suffered Personal Injury at the hands of that Provider (usually psychiatric injury) the Court will not be interested in anything Devereux of the DWP might think. He may not even be a party to the litigation if the injured customer sues the WP Provider alone. If this is what happens and the customer wins damages, it would be up to the WP Provider alone to pay both the damages and costs. Devereux would say that the whole thing is nothing to do with the DWP and - in the context of the litigation - Devereux would be right.

If the injured customer sues the WP Provider and the DWP together then Devereux still doesn't have too much to worry about because the DWP is the Government and the Govt is "self-insuring" anyway.

Devereux would leave the WP Provider in the lurch. There are no two ways about that! I wuld agree with Devereux because there is no reason why the WP Providers cannot take some legal advice and then protect themselves against any possible claims by obtaining PI insurance. Lloyds of London has enough Brokers who can get a PI policy written specially if necessary. If the WP Provider has been toe amateurish to bother to consider this risk sensibly, that is nobody else's fault.

So the Court won't give a damn about the WP scheme, frankly. The only question for the Court is, "Did the WP Provider (and maybe the DWP as well if the customer has chosen to sue both the provider and the DWP) cause this customer to suffer personal injury of the psychiatric injury variety? Yes or No?"

The other thing to bear in mind is that the customer does not necessarily need to have won the Lottery! There are plenty of "no win, no fee" solicitors around who are experts at handling personal injury claims. Additionally, a firm called Public Interest Lawyers are more than happy to get involved in this sort of situation. Public Injury Lawyers Ltd acted for Cait Reilly recently, if you recall.

http://www.publicinterestlawyers.co.uk/

On The Work Programme ALL front line staff have to be cleared under BPSS as a minimum, full reference and identity checks, are carried out. In short it is subject to more checks than a lot of jobs, in addition as pointed out above there are loads of qualifications that are gained whilst working in the industry. A lot of advisors are also professionaly qualified from other industries ( certainly a lot of staff I have working for me/ have worked for me). These include(d) teacher, social worker, psychologist, nurse, recruitment professionals with qualifications as well as many, many people with degrees in a variety of subjects. My last employer put everyone through IAG up to level 4.
The industry is not as easy to get into as you might like to think, employers I have worked for had a very rigorous process and rejected far, far more people than they recruited.

Lazycow- "claiming that the customer has suffered Personal Injury at the hands of that Provider (usually psychiatric injury)"
Never come across anyone claiming for this, care to provide a link to any cases, would make interesting reading.

@Voice

"Lazycow- "claiming that the customer has suffered Personal Injury at the hands of that Provider (usually psychiatric injury)"
Never come across anyone claiming for this, care to provide a link to any cases, would make interest."

I have not claimed that this has already happened. I have merely pointed out that it is only a matter of time before it does happen.

Oh , my mistake, it is an assumption then that if someone made a claim it would be "psychiatric" I have to say I have never even had a sniff of someone considering this. Usually the complaint is around being made to do something they do not wish to do such as training or job search. I worked on pathways which had a high proportion of mental illness customers, again never ace across this. Although living in such a litigious society with the prevalence of ambulance chasing" no win no fee" firms I guess it could happen.
Thanks for clearing this up for me.