DWP: 'The Code of Conduct (sort of) does not apply to Pathways to Work'
Speaking with a (former) Pathways subcontractor the other day, they related an interesting experience of dealing with the DWP. The subcontractor's legal contract with the prime required them to give 30 days notification to the DWP when terminating their subcontract. They gave notice to the DWP, and were told that their subcontract had no legal value with the DWP in any case.
Further queries on this and on a variety of breaches of both the contract and the Code of Conduct moved up the chain of DWP contract management. After a notable lack of response and much chasing, the response came back: The Code of Conduct does not apply to Pathways to Work contracts. Sadly the response wasn't in writing, but a DWP spokesperson had the following to say when asked to clarify the matter:
"Effective working arrangements between prime contractors and their sub-contractors is very important to the Department in the delivery of all provider led programmes. We published a Code of Conduct in February 2008 as part of DWP's Commissioning Strategy. The contracting process for Provider-led Pathways to Work was largely complete prior to February 2008 and did not therefore include formal compliance with the Code. The principles of the Code however, applies to all our supply chains."
This obviously raises questions about how Pathways subcontract disputes are dealt with in practice. Most prime contractors will have set out their contract management processes in their initial tender, which normally forms part of the legal contract between DWP and provider. However, subcontractors don't have a legal right to see the tender, so again the mechanisms for involving the DWP in disputes become fuzzy.
It would be interesting to hear other primes' and subs' experiences in resolving contract disputes. Feel free to post here or get in touch
Comments
Related to this, I've been told by a number of senior figures in welfare-to-work over the past year that the DWP were 'out of the bunker' and not going back in again. Their unwillingness to engage with this site was ascribed to a general arms-length approach to anyone seen as a journalist, rather than any bunker mentality.
Leaving aside whether the primary function of the site is journalism (it's information-sharing, which is subtly different), subcontractor relationships raise a very tricky conundrum for the DWP. How far should they interfere in relationships between primes and subs, given that the whole point of prime contracting is outsourcing the management of these relationships?
One way to square the circle would be to take a deliberately hands-off approach, but make the existence and condition of subcontracting relationships entirely transparent. If a prime has failing relationships with its subs, make everyone aware of precisely what the issues are, and allow them to take this into account when deciding whether to deal with the prime in future. This would give subcontractors an indirect but very powerful way of holding primes accountable.
Excellent suggestion - and taking your idea one step further - using DWP best practice - taking the PEM review approach to understanding issues and reviewing causes. This will ensure if relationships begin to "fail" between Primes and subs, there is an auditable trail for ALL parties and not based on speculation or perception.
May I add...
How do we prevent employers using DWP provision to replace existing jobs? There's an interesting article in the Guardian about employers using the downturn as an excuse to cut jobs in order to increase profits or remove 'the faces that don't fit'. The article culminates in the following comment which is pretty terriying in the current climate:
"I was made redundant last year. Since then my job has been done by people who are on some sort of job trial scheme where their pay is subsidised by the government. When their three-month trial ends, they're told that sadly it didn't work out and they're let go. Then the job is re-advertised at the Job Centre and it starts again with some other poor sod."
I recently took on a Lone Parent, despite her Advisor asking me three times if I'd rather take her on a 'try before I buy basis'. Apparently, in her office, they get stars on their badges if they sort a work trial.... even at the expense of an actual job?!?!? Crackers!
Redundancies generally are often used to remove people perceived to be underperformers or misfits, moreso in smaller organisations that follow less formal redundancy processes. The major difference is that there are more redundancies going on at the moment. Employers aren't just upping workloads and cutting numbers though - they're also cutting actual wages. Here's an interesting Paul Krugman article on how this kind of belt-tightening can actually deepen the recession.
The Guardian comment is pretty scary, not least because the employer evidently thinks it worthwhile to induct and then get rid of staff on a 3 month cycle - it often takes that long just to become effective in a job. I suspect there are oodles of rules against this sort of thing, but I'd have to ask who's enforcing them, especially if JCP staff targets are actively discouraging closer investigation.