Ingeus

[Nystagmite]

But where are these jobs?

[caledfwlch]

I'm astonished that no-one's mentioned this as yet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20905415

 

Labour has said it would offer the long-term unemployed a guarantee of a six-month job if it was in government. Businesses would be given subsidies to hire people on a temporary basis, with those refusing a suitable job having benefits docked. Labour said the move sent a "clear message" about its stance on welfare but admitted it could not commit to the scheme if returned to power in 2015

 

So, what if you didn't like the job you were given?

Does this make workfare more like workfair?

 

The bare information I have been reading has Labour saying that the 6 month jobs would be in return for Benefits, not min wage?

[RebeccaPidgeon]

I'm astonished that no-one's mentioned this as yet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20905415

 

Labour has said it would offer the long-term unemployed a guarantee of a six-month job if it was in government. Businesses would be given subsidies to hire people on a temporary basis, with those refusing a suitable job having benefits docked. Labour said the move sent a "clear message" about its stance on welfare but admitted it could not commit to the scheme if returned to power in 2015

 

So, what if you didn't like the job you were given?

Does this make workfare more like workfair?

 

I am sure that, if the PR Release was worthy of consideration, it would have been referred to with a modicum of reverance that it deserved.

 

But where are these jobs?

 

Theoretically, a future Labour Government could issue Financial Bonds to finance Public Investment Projects, and then get the Bank of England to use QE in order to buy those Financial Bonds. If the projects were capital intensive, such as infrastructural projects or housebuilding, then this could create additional jobs, which may be filled through the unemployed, and reduce the likelihood of any employer replacing salaried jobs with slave labour.

 

The problem with QE - a policy which is the last bastion of a failed economy - is that it remains baloney.

[RaeUK]

I might have totally misundertood this, but the quote RebeccaP made earlier regarding 'the nudge unit' (whatever that is!) sounded like basic commonsense and I would have thought the jobcentre should have been working that way anyway.

 

(Disclaimer: I'm not on JSA and have no understanding of how all this works.)

[Bullpoofilter]

The unit made three changes to the way jobseekers in Loughton were treated: the amount of paperwork was reduced at the first meeting so that the claimant could talk about getting back to work from day one; the conversation was focused on what jobseekers would do for the next fortnight and they were encouraged to make written commitments; and advisers at the centre were told to build the confidence and wellbeing of those still claiming after eight weeks, rather than treating them as failures.

 

I might have totally misundertood this, but the quote RebeccaP made earlier regarding 'the nudge unit' (whatever that is!) sounded like basic commonsense and I would have thought the jobcentre should have been working that way anyway.

 

(Disclaimer: I'm not on JSA and have no understanding of how all this works.)

 

Unfortunately, if you ask someone to make a commitment to doing something over the time period between then and your next meeting you can run into - 'ahh, you can't ask me to do this because it's not on my Job Seekers Agreement'.

 

So, maintaining commonsense can become a bit challenging if the person doesn't feel like doing something different and you'll spend longer having an 'interesting' conversation about what someone will or won't do than you would actually doing it.

[RebeccaPidgeon]

I might have totally misundertood this, but the quote RebeccaP made earlier regarding 'the nudge unit' (whatever that is!) sounded like basic commonsense and I would have thought the jobcentre should have been working that way anyway.

 

(Disclaimer: I'm not on JSA and have no understanding of how all this works.)

 

Common Sense has never been a strong point within the Civil Service... when candidates are offered a position, for example within the Job Centre, they are constrained in working in that job at that grade for 6 months, and are disallowed from applying for promotion. The rationale is that stability is promoted. However, the problem remains that if staff are reliant on an established process/system, there remains little that staff can do to deliver innovation.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19656595

An "innovative" government unit set up by one of David Cameron's closest aides is to start exporting knowledge to Australia.

 

The "Nudge Unit" advises government on ways to encourage people to change behaviour, without using compulsion.

 

It claims to have helped increase court fine payments and late tax payments by employing its unusual techniques.

 

Ministers said the unit had saved taxpayers money and showed the UK was a world leader in behavioural change.

 

The approach is based on a school of thought that "nudging" people in a certain direction is more productive and cost-effective than trying to change behaviour by banning things or passing regulation.

 

It was championed by Steve Hilton, a former close aide to Prime Minister David Cameron, who helped establish the Behavioural Insights Team at No 10 after the 2010 general election.

 

[gil_jnr]

After all, there's no financial incentives to sanction someone but there are if someone else gets into a job.

 

I was threatened with various forms of sanctions for refusing to provide job details or sign the employer contact consent when I told my former Ingeus advisor I had been offered an internship post, and later led to a job.

 

I was also offered bribes of £100 and then £200 to give them the details they required to secure the outcome payment.

[joeski]

had my first appointment at igneus today and i found the guy i saw very rude, i actually hate him for the way he treated me

[Nystagmite]

I was threatened with various forms of sanctions for refusing to provide job details or sign the employer contact consent when I told my former Ingeus advisor I had been offered an internship post, and later led to a job.

 

I was also offered bribes of £100 and then £200 to give them the details they required to secure the outcome payment.

 

Sanction you how? If you've got a job, you can't be sanctioned.

[caledfwlch]

Unfortunately, if you ask someone to make a commitment to doing something over the time period between then and your next meeting you can run into - 'ahh, you can't ask me to do this because it's not on my Job Seekers Agreement'.

 

So, maintaining commonsense can become a bit challenging if the person doesn't feel like doing something different and you'll spend longer having an 'interesting' conversation about what someone will or won't do than you would actually doing it.

 

The Nudge Unit's work was with people only just made unemployed, and probably most importantly, everyone the unit worked with volunteered to try the experiment out. I rather suspect the success was far more down to the claimants than the nudge unit.

 

Sanction you how? If you've got a job, you can't be sanctioned.

 

Providers were claiming they could sanction your National Insurance Contributions. So, presumably in around 40 years time, some people might get a letter saying their pension is going to be 50p less a week due to a "doubt being raised" in 2012.

 

Its complete and utter rubbish. You cannot be sanctioned in anyway whatsoever for refusing the data waiver, and for refusing to tell the provider who your new employer is. The fact that Gil_jnr was then offered financial bribes says everything you need to know about the validity of the providers wild and imaginative claim.

[antone]

 

Providers were claiming they could sanction your National Insurance Contributions. So, presumably in around 40 years time, some people might get a letter saying their pension is going to be 50p less a week due to a "doubt being raised" in 2012.

 

Its complete and utter rubbish. You cannot be sanctioned in anyway whatsoever for refusing the data waiver, and for refusing to tell the provider who your new employer is. The fact that Gil_jnr was then offered financial bribes says everything you need to know about the validity of the providers wild and imaginative claim.

 

Yes, we've had reports of people being told this - that NI conts can be sanctioned, or that sanctions could apply to future claims. Neither is true, of course, and I would hope these are isolated examples of overzealous advisers. But where on earth did anyone get the idea that they could make such threats?

[caledfwlch]

Yes, we've had reports of people being told this - that NI conts can be sanctioned, or that sanctions could apply to future claims. Neither is true, of course, and I would hope these are isolated examples of overzealous advisers. But where on earth did anyone get the idea that they could make such threats?

 

The DWP is not exactly forward in explaining to people their rights when sending them to the Providers.

[33crazydude]

You got a letter verifying your withdrawal? I didn't get one off either ingeus or the JC, as Nimitz said the manager probably sulked over it

 

 

Surly INGEUS would get into trouble if the branch manager doesn’t provide you with a verifying letter?

Did you enquire as to why you never got a letter?

[flumps1976]

Sanctions and doubts cannot be raised for the future, if a referral is made and the customer signs off before the decision is made then a "reserved" decision is made and that means the doubt can be rasied again if the customer re-signs again within a period of 26 weeks of the last date of the previous claim.

[33crazydude]

The DWP is not exactly forward in explaining to people their rights when sending them to the Providers.

 

I couldn’t agree more with this statement.

[33crazydude]

I'm astonished that no-one's mentioned this as yet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20905415

 

Labour has said it would offer the long-term unemployed a guarantee of a six-month job if it was in government. Businesses would be given subsidies to hire people on a temporary basis, with those refusing a suitable job having benefits docked. Labour said the move sent a "clear message" about its stance on welfare but admitted it could not commit to the scheme if returned to power in 2015

 

So, what if you didn't like the job you were given?

Does this make workfare more like workfair?

 

 

I have sadly been out of work for two years, but hopefully there’s a chance of me getting a position with Morrison’s, but if Morrison’s decide to not employ me, I wonder what crap job labour would give me.

We all have to suffer because our economic system is intrinsically flawed!

 

Sorry, I went off on one

[flumps1976]

This is the adviser guidance (I hope the work links) on the referral to wirk program

tbh things like data protection waivers aren't commonly known, I only know due to reading this forum and it was a suprose when I mentioned to out adviser who is the liason betweeb the providers and our JC office.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=wp1m%20mandatory%20referral%20form&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.whatdotheyknow.com%2Frequest%2Fmandatory_work_activity_communit_2%2Frelease-20120725%2FWork%2520Programme%2520Referral%2520Guide%2FWork%2520Programme%2520Referral%252021.11.11.doc&ei=_07nUNe_HIfChAfWiIH4BA&usg=AFQjCNFQvx6jAfEpsr0rTjQNJ-GiASatZQ

[Chester6]

the DWP never told me my rights before sending me to the WP or any previous scheme

[G4C389]

Surly INGEUS would get into trouble if the branch manager doesn’t provide you with a verifying letter?

Did you enquire as to why you never got a letter?

 

Well I withrdrawn consent mid November and I have been working since April, my dad who is on JSA handed a copy to the JC manager and she asked for my NI number and said shell take it from there, he said she wanted my number to discuss it with me but never called me, I'm disappointed not to have for a letter like, I said to the JC manager if it was just my old WP advisor making money on it then I could live with that because she gave me all the help I needed at the time, (although this job was all my own doing) but other than my advisor the other advisors i met were as parronising as could be, and no I never got a letter off either, pathetic arnt they?

[Katrianah]

It's a treatment for people with mental health issues isn't it? Being on benefits does not mean you have mental health problems so why are A4E allowed to do CBT? They aren't allowed to use or prescribe other medical treatments. indeed, where ESA claimants are being sent to Providers, the letters are VERY clear that the Provider may not prescribe or attempt to force you into taking a treatment.

 

This is what Wiki has to say on CBT:

 

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a psychotherapeutic approach that addresses dysfunctional emotions, maladaptive behaviors and cognitive processes and contents through a number of goal-oriented, explicit systematic procedures. The name refers to behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, and to therapy based upon a combination of basic behavioral and cognitive principles and research.

CBT is thought to be effective for the treatment of a variety of conditions, including mood, anxiety, personality, eating, substance abuse, tic, and psychotic disorders. Many CBT treatment programs for specific disorders have been evaluated for efficacy; the health-care trend of evidence-based treatment, where specific treatments for symptom-based diagnoses are recommended, has favored CBT over other approaches such as psychodynamic treatments.[1]

 

So, erm, not something you would expect a work programme provider to send you on, this absolutely IS forcing benefits claimants to undertake medical treatment against their will.

 

There's some confusion here. W2W providers are sending people for NLP which I completely disagree with. Someone asked what NLP was, Rebecca compared it to CBT as shady science which I disagree with. AFAIK no-one is being sent by W2W providers for CBT treatment. CBT is legitimate and works for some people (myself included when I was sent by accredited Mental Health workers), NLP is quackery.

 

As someone who's still in the care of a mental health team, I dispise the fact that W2W providers are even trying to mandate NLP to people, and if they even try to mandate my going for treatment all hell with break loose.

[Bakatcha]

There's some confusion here. W2W providers are sending people for NLP which I completely disagree with. Someone asked what NLP was, Rebecca compared it to CBT as shady science which I disagree with. AFAIK no-one is being sent by W2W providers for CBT treatment. CBT is legitimate and works for some people (myself included when I was sent by accredited Mental Health workers), NLP is quackery.

 

As someone who's still in the care of a mental health team, I dispise the fact that W2W providers are even trying to mandate NLP to people, and if they even try to mandate my going for treatment all hell with break loose.

NLP is not treatment - it is snake oil peddled by snake oil salesmen. In March I had the misfortune to be mandated onto a one day course run by people who described themselves as "masters of Neuro Linguistic programming". There was no prior discussion of the course prior to my mandation, no prior mention of NLP just a letter in the post mandating my attendance. Needless to say the course itself was completely useless but the poor victims (including me) had to sit through it all. If any one had left the result would've been a sanction doubt, disagreeing too vehemently with the twit attempting to impart his wisdom carried the same omnipresent threat of removal of all income.

I got angry and decided to get even.

I spoke to a journalist from the Financial Times. My comments and experience formed part of an article she did and which was published in the FT - from memory it was titled "The role of Neuro Linguistic programming in the Work programme" (or something similar).

A4e attempted to defend themselves - they claimed that the course was discussed with attendees prior to the course and that everyone had agreed to attend (two lies there in quick succession).

I don't think A4e will be quite so quick to go anywhere near NLP in the future.

[Bakatcha]

The DWP is not exactly forward in explaining to people their rights when sending them to the Providers.

@Antone "But where on earth did anyone get the idea that they could make such threats?"

They looked inside their black box and pretended to find it in there

[Nystagmite]

Aren't there laws about forcing people to have treatment?

[Bakatcha]

This is the adviser guidance (I hope the work links) on the referral to wirk program

tbh things like data protection waivers aren't commonly known, I only know due to reading this forum and it was a suprose when I mentioned to out adviser who is the liason betweeb the providers and our JC office.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=wp1m%20mandatory%20referral%20form&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CEMQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.whatdotheyknow.com%2Frequest%2Fmandatory_work_activity_communit_2%2Frelease-20120725%2FWork%2520Programme%2520Referral%2520Guide%2FWork%2520Programme%2520Referral%252021.11.11.doc&ei=_07nUNe_HIfChAfWiIH4BA&usg=AFQjCNFQvx6jAfEpsr0rTjQNJ-GiASatZQ

The link worked for me -thanks flumps. I found para 85 interesting. It says:

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.

For

mandatory claimants only you must issue the appropriate clerical WP Referral

Letter.

 

 

 

 

™

for

JSA claimants

‘WP” Start Letter (JSA) WP05’,

and

 

 

 

 

 

™

for ESA claimants “WP” Start Letter (ESA) WP06’

 

 

 

 

 

Note

– Jobcentre Plus is unable to sanction

claimants who have been issued with the wrong WP start letter.

 

 

Note

- Following an entitlement or actively seeing employment disallowance or at each

new claim the WP05 (WP06) and WP1M must be re-issued to the

claimant

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now I never got the right letter (WP05) and I guess a lot of people are in the same boat. So our mandation to the WP is invalid - we cannot be sanctioned for failing to attend, Same applies to those who got an incorrectly worded WP05 i.e. one that does not refer to the enabling regulations.

[flumps1976]

When WP was first introduced some of the letters hadn't been printed and clerical letters were issued initially, the letter have been updated several times, you can certainly try that aproach if you are referred for any further sanctions by the Work Program providers