Take a bow, mighty conservative Britain, the workhouses are back
- Thread starter oulton
- Start date
You think people that use the Job Centre care about a "career"? You action a career for yourself. Nobody else is going to do it for you.
Well educated people (not including Mickey Mouse degrees) have probably never set foot in a Job Centre.
This has nothing to do with statistics. It's about improving employability and saving the public purse from yet more people getting addicted to the dole and benefits.
Last edited:
They don't have the room. They are providing people with an opportunity though. It's quite simple to grasp. They'll band it under their social responsibility remit.
I have not read of all the thread, but the first post who seems to suggest this is an initiative introduced by the Conservatives is well off the mark.
I work in the jobcentre and can tell you that the previous Labour government introduced a programme called 'Community Task Force' which was mandatory for *all* 18-24 year olds, regardless of background, who failed to find a job or take up other opportunities for training by the 50th week of their claim to JSA.
The placements were sourced by training providers and were not always doing a 'proper' job in a conventional workplace...work was often 'put on' for people to do in training centres or in the community. Everyone was expected to do it, even graduates, and if they didn't do it, they would lose their benefit for up to 13 weeks, regardless of how suitable for them it actually was.
The current work experience programme as implemented this time around by the coalition governmen, and run through jobcentreplus, is NOT mandatory and it is at the advisors discretion as to whether a candidate be referred to do such a placement. Not everyone would be. This time around the placements are all with proper employers, in a real work environment, and often have the opportunity of a job interview at the end for candidates who perform well. That this is not mandated to all youngsters is good in so much that, as an employment advisor, I can refer those who lack experience to go and get this with a proper employer, in the sector they are interested in working in, where as those who actually have experience or higher level qualifications are not made to do something that is sometimes not all that suitable or useful.
One would not expect the Guardian to miss a chance to slate the coalition/conservatives though, even though this is (in my personal view) a better programme and of more relavence to the real labour market than that which was implemented at the behest of the last government.
Another point I want to address, people are suggesting such placements are used to manipulate employment statistics. This is the truth:
For those on the 'old' community task force, 13 week placements, they were removed from Jobseekers Allowance and received a Training Allowance, and thus were technically taken off the claimant count for the period they were on the course, and were not expected or forced to actually look for work whilst on the placement.
For those on the new Work Experience placements (under the 'Get Britain Working' banner), as discussed in this thread and mentioned in the Guardian article originally linked to, the placements are 8 weeks in length, and customers continue to receive jobseekers allowance whilst on the placement, so they remain on the official unemployment register, are obliged to sign on, and must still look for work in the time they have outside of the placement.
I work in the jobcentre and can tell you that the previous Labour government introduced a programme called 'Community Task Force' which was mandatory for *all* 18-24 year olds, regardless of background, who failed to find a job or take up other opportunities for training by the 50th week of their claim to JSA.
The placements were sourced by training providers and were not always doing a 'proper' job in a conventional workplace...work was often 'put on' for people to do in training centres or in the community. Everyone was expected to do it, even graduates, and if they didn't do it, they would lose their benefit for up to 13 weeks, regardless of how suitable for them it actually was.
The current work experience programme as implemented this time around by the coalition governmen, and run through jobcentreplus, is NOT mandatory and it is at the advisors discretion as to whether a candidate be referred to do such a placement. Not everyone would be. This time around the placements are all with proper employers, in a real work environment, and often have the opportunity of a job interview at the end for candidates who perform well. That this is not mandated to all youngsters is good in so much that, as an employment advisor, I can refer those who lack experience to go and get this with a proper employer, in the sector they are interested in working in, where as those who actually have experience or higher level qualifications are not made to do something that is sometimes not all that suitable or useful.
One would not expect the Guardian to miss a chance to slate the coalition/conservatives though, even though this is (in my personal view) a better programme and of more relavence to the real labour market than that which was implemented at the behest of the last government.
Another point I want to address, people are suggesting such placements are used to manipulate employment statistics. This is the truth:
For those on the 'old' community task force, 13 week placements, they were removed from Jobseekers Allowance and received a Training Allowance, and thus were technically taken off the claimant count for the period they were on the course, and were not expected or forced to actually look for work whilst on the placement.
For those on the new Work Experience placements (under the 'Get Britain Working' banner), as discussed in this thread and mentioned in the Guardian article originally linked to, the placements are 8 weeks in length, and customers continue to receive jobseekers allowance whilst on the placement, so they remain on the official unemployment register, are obliged to sign on, and must still look for work in the time they have outside of the placement.
Last edited:
Good idea tbh... most modern employees are 'slaves' to some degree or another anyway - might as well make the sponges who are a net drain on our society contribute something.
Next time you are at the jobcentre go and ask your personal advisor about the Travel To Interview scheme (TIS).
If you have a job interview outside the local geographical area the jobcentre has a scheme to support you with the costs of travel, and, if reasonable, an overnight stay if the timing of the interview is such you could not reasonably expected to get there and back on the same day.
I realise the costs travel to interviews far away is a real strain for someone whose only income is JSA, as you mention train travel to London is expensive if you're only on £53.50 a week (if you're less than 25)....but there is help for you with this, if you ask.
Unfortunately they require evidence, and if you've been called in a day or so before, you can't exactly provide evidence (i.e. a letter). Not only that but it's a refund, so you have to pay out initially, and if you're like many, most if not all of your JSA goes on bills and food, and it can be dangerous to spend it all on an interview, and then have to wait around for them to sort it out.
I doubt you'll be saying that when your mother is being told she is going to have to do manual labour 5 days a week for the joke that is JSA, when she has ongoing injuries and pains which the consultants happily pretend don't exist so they can reach their 'targets'.
They should be out cleaning parks and streets unless they can prove they are at interviews or training
They should be glad of the free training, also if tesco costs are reduced a little the workers will benefit from slightly reduced prices
I would only apply this to people out of work and on benefits for more than x months, so skilled workers between jobs don't have to do it...
It's against the law to pay less than minimum wage but politicians are good at bending that and so because they class it as training (even though it's not) they can get away with it.
This is not necessarily true, there are actually two schemes available to all jobseekers:
Travel To Interview scheme - TIS - This is for job interviews outside your local area, for example the job in London mentioned before. You can get expenses and a rail warrant to buy the ticket you need *in advance* of any interview. Some proof is needed, via email, letter or details of the company so we call and check. This service is usually available at very short notice and usually is done by jobcentre staff dealing with In Depth Enquiries/AJCS who as part of the job are required to sort things out at short notice (all manner of issued including lost/missing payments, bereavement benefit interviews and other things you would want sorting out quickly).
The other is a reimbursement afterwards, through the Advisor Discretion Fund (now renamed Flexible Support Fund), this can cover travel costs usually bit is discretionary and you do need proof. This service is done through jobcentre personal advisors who have a diary full of appointments booked up in advance so can admittedly be difficult to get it sorted and paid quickly.
You are expected to use your JSA to fund interviews within your local travel to work area though, the money they pay is deemed sufficient 'officially', as tough as this is in reality, but if it is a problem, ask....don't miss out on an opportunity because of this.
If you are signing on, ask your advisor to tell you about these things...I would have hoped that they would have told you.
Last edited:
I could be persuaded to agree to it if it did not disciminate against the young, and was targetted only at SME's. Businesses turning over billions do not need state subsidy. So as far as I currently understand it, I would have to say no.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,249
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Hardly the point, larger company’s deal with new staff all the time, they have programs and systems in place to look after and 'train' them, small company’s don't and it will often be more trouble than it's worth, plus it's much harder to manage 100's of small company’s than a couple of huge ones.
Err, it is exactly my point? Smaller companies are just as able to absorb new workers are large business groups. The state doesn't manage private entities.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,249
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
It's much harder for smaller companys to take unskilled workers onboard, they don't have the experience nor procedures in place to deal with unskilled staff, think about it due to the nature of larger organisations they have to deal with new staff more oftern.
Small organisations often have positive or negative staff retention problems themself, or even a natural turn over. It isn't unique, and it isn't widespread as seems to be implied. I think you are at risk of insulting a broad range of talent and skill in our small business groups.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,249
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
It's not an insult, it's the nature of small vs. large organisations.
There is no evidence for this.
One could argue it discriminates against the older people who lack relavent experience since it is generally restricted to 18-24 year olds...now I work in the jobcentre as a Disability Employment Advisor, I try to help my clients but for many of them the challenges are great, some have not worked for 10+ years, some even longer, I wish such opportunities were made available to them really.
Your objections on economic and ideological grounds are all well and good, but what alternative scheme would you propose to help people who have little or no relavent work experience gain this, when those employers that are hiring are all asking for experience?
Without experience the reality is that you'll struggle to get a job, even for jobs at the lower end of the skill spectrum like more general retail work or warehouse.
Now the last government essentially created jobs for young people in terms of the 'Future Jobs Fund', these were 6 month contracts, open only to 18-24 year olds, with community organisations, offering at least 25hrs a week at NMW, for which the organisation got about £5k per candidate to take them on. This was intended as a way for people to go into work and gain experience, it was a proper job in terms of what people were asked to do, but it was artificial job creation that did not boost the real economy, and the economics did not seem to support these people being kept on after the subsidised period started...hardly any actually stayed in post after the 6 month contract had expired.
Its obviously an employers market at the moment...they can afford to be (and are being) picky
. With that in mind, people are asked to take steps to gain work experience wherever possible....the government puts on schemes to help this as is mentioned, and they get slaughtered, yet nobody has actually suggested a viable alternative.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,249
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Tescos currently have 7,000 people on training and development courses they have teams of people dedicated to training members of staff, these members of staff specialise in training.
A small company will not and does not have the same in house capacity.
Didn't read the thread, so it may have already been said.
Labour had this scheme for years under the name of New Deal (26 week unpaid placement for 18-24 year olds and 13 weeks for 25+) and Flexible New Deal (4 week mandatory work related activity - work placement - sanctioned for not going).
Labour had this scheme for years under the name of New Deal (26 week unpaid placement for 18-24 year olds and 13 weeks for 25+) and Flexible New Deal (4 week mandatory work related activity - work placement - sanctioned for not going).