A lot of people are in for a big shock regarding 'In-work progression/conditionality' part of Univer

well in theory - isn't that where a work coach could assist them...

I mean where it does work as intended a work coach could point out that they're being defeatist and that actually he's got other clients of a similar age who have managed to find additional work or take on more responsibility with their own employer

disclaimer - obviously these 'work coaches' will no doubt vary in quality and some people on here will no doubt view job centre staff as the scum of the earth
 
A bit later they are talking about the Southwark trial - where 100% of the claimants fell into rent arrears :D

So they talked about budgeting skills, and Priti is talking about there will be a Housing Officer and a Financial Advisor there to teach people the skills they need....

Q137 Ms Buck: Who are they? Who are these people? Who employs them?

Priti Patel: A lot of this is in local authorities. This is local authority provision. I was in a centre on Friday in a district council where we have the voluntary aspects, we have the CAB, we have Jobcentre Plus and UC—

Q138 Ms Buck: They are not the council, are they?

Priti Patel: There are council staff as well, working alongside, embedded and integrated and providing support.

Q139 Ms Buck: You are saying there is a housing adviser and a financial adviser available in every—

Priti Patel: I am not saying everywhere but this is the level of service provision that we are working to right now.

Neil Coyle: That is part of the universal support.

Q140 Ms Buck: If you are working to it, it implies that it is there?

Priti Patel: We have it. We do have it in some parts of the country.

Q141 Neil Coyle: Some. Currently that is the universal support offer. It is commissioned by the local authority, not by Jobcentre or the DWP. You have already said that is going to continue as this rolls out. Is it the case that that will still be commissioned by local authorities so that there can be that variation and personalisation that you have talked about?

Priti Patel: Local authorities are a strategic partner for us to work with. Of course they are absolutely there working with us, not just to provide the support but to deliver many of the services as well, through co-location and also through the staff that they provide to give advice and support with our people.

Q142 Neil Coyle: Is that a yes?

Priti Patel: Of course it is. That is exactly what I am referring to.
Click to expand...

I can just see LA's stumping up the cash to have a HO and FA available to manage all the claimants on UC, especially when Central Govt is doing such a good job in slashing their budgets
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
well in theory - isn't that where a work coach could assist them...

I mean where it does work as intended a work coach could point out that they're being defeatist and that actually he's got other clients of a similar age who have managed to find additional work or take on more responsibility with their own employer

disclaimer - obviously these 'work coaches' will no doubt vary in quality and some people on here will no doubt view job centre staff as the scum of the earth
Click to expand...

From my experience companies that have a structure like they are talking are the exception rather than the rule and unless you are on a career plan for management very limited if any opportunities for increasing pay through productivity or taking on extra responsibilities.

We have progression plans at work but realistically very few roles have much potential for anything like that.
 
Caged said:
What sort of hours do Job Centre staff work, out of interest?
Click to expand...

good question - would a job centre staff member working 16 hours a week have to be interviewed by his colleagues and told he should be asking for more hours or pushing for promotion? :D
 
They do go on like people want to be on rubbish pay. There's people out there who have maxed out and won't progress but still...they work hard and at least try. I don't see how punishing them gets any one anywhere.
 
Arthur Hucksake said:
They do go on like people want to be on rubbish pay. There's people out there who have maxed out and won't progress but still...they work hard and at least try. I don't see how punishing them gets any one anywhere.
Click to expand...

There is also the aspect that there are many 1000s of people who aren't pushing what would appear to be their potential and progressed as far as normally people would due to "hidden disabilities" and some "work coach" putting pressure on them is just making it more difficult for someone already potentially in a dismal situation.
 
Those of you opposed to this, how would you solve the problem of in-work people still having to claim money from the government? Surely it's not a situation that can just be left to carry on?
 
godinman said:
Those of you opposed to this, how would you solve the problem of in-work people still having to claim money from the government? Surely it's not a situation that can just be left to carry on?
Click to expand...

That's down to false hyper inflation brought about by both companies not paying good enough wages and tax credits which should never have existed.

Surely the onus is on businesses right? They hire & pay and dictate the market.

I agree something has got to give, but I see all of the emphasis being thrown at the low paid worker. People can't live off thin air.

I expect we will head towards another retail slump because people have even less disposable income.
 
Arthur Hucksake said:
That's down to false hyper inflation brought about by both companies not paying good enough wages and tax credits which should never have existed.

Surely the onus is on businesses right? They hire & pay and dictate the market.

I agree something has got to give, but I see all of the emphasis being thrown at the low paid worker. People can't live off thin air.

I expect we will head towards another retail slump because people have even less disposable income.
Click to expand...

Yeah its interesting - the colleague I talked about earlier 15+ years ago had no problem finding full time hours - these days employers don't tend to do those kind of jobs with more than about 20 hours.

Also there is the problem that when we have offered her more hours (temporary increases to cover busy times, etc.) she has turned it down as it is such a meal to get her benefits adjusted (before she was on benefits she was regularly doing a lot of overtime).
 
Bigger pool of people to sanction then with UC, all part of the Tory austerity agenda I suppose. They should go after pensioners next.. no reason they can't be looking for work if they are able to do it and they should only be able to claim retirement when they're no longer able to 'contribute to society'.

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves! Britons never, never, never shall be slaves. oh..
 
Last edited:
phil675 said:
Surely this isn't practical in the slightest? There will be queues down the street at the jobcentre? Most people working part-time are doing that because they have kids or education that stops them working more.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. If they have children then they should just get childcare and then work full time. Instead, they are making the tax payer subsidise their part-time life style.
 
The Mad Rapper said:
That's nonsense. If they have children then they should just get childcare and then work full time. Instead, they are making the tax payer subsidise their part-time life style.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. The tax payer will be subsiding expensive day orthanpages instead and all the expensive emotional consequences. A working class father or mother should be able to support a large family as was possible in the last century.
 
godinman said:
Those of you opposed to this, how would you solve the problem of in-work people still having to claim money from the government? Surely it's not a situation that can just be left to carry on?
Click to expand...

It's been going on for the whole of my adult life and sometime before that, why can't it carry on?
If people in part time work were made to look for more, some of them will not be able to find any more however hard they tried, at least for a while, benefits would still have to go to them unless you wanted to throw them into abject poverty.
No job is 100% safe. I think all governments would think some work is better than no work (as it is you get less housing benefit for the more money that you earn up to the point you get no benefit thereby costing the government less if you work at all). If someone lost all their hours then getting a part time job would be better than no job, and they might need to have benefits while in work. So there would always be some people who work who get benefits.
 
Last edited:
godinman said:
Those of you opposed to this, how would you solve the problem of in-work people still having to claim money from the government? Surely it's not a situation that can just be left to carry on?
Click to expand...

Replenishing council housing stock would be a good start. Cheaper housing would fix a lot of problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom