Dear Claire,
More IBS today I’m afraid.
I would like to continue where we left off yesterday
– more interviews from Jobcentre workers.
We’ll just remind ourselves of your quote:
I have to say that I profoundly disagree with
you (on this issue re: DWP). Your assertions are, I’m afraid, not backed up by
the facts.
Interview 2 – April 29th 2014
Jobcentre adviser: “The reforms have been designed to hide the numbers
of unemployed.”
We interviewed a
Jobcentre adviser to ask about their experiences of welfare reforms since the
coalition came to power. Having seen the changes and effects of unprecedented
reforms, we wanted to know how their job experiences and demands had changed.
In the first part of this interview we talk about changes to welfare since the
coalition and how the number of unemployed is remaining hidden under reforms.
How long have you worked in
the job centre?
“10 years+ and in numerous positions.”
What are your thoughts and
experiences of welfare reforms and rules since the coalition came to power? How
have they changed? What are they aimed towards? What have been the effects on
the people you serve?
“It is clear that the Coalition/Tories have created
a determined propaganda campaign against the most vulnerable members of
society. From Osborne’s shirkers and workers speech to the ‘hardworking
people’ mantra. Clearly designed to separate claimants from those who
feel they are hard done to. If you can make the masses think that claimants are
feckless lazy scum, you can get away with doing virtually anything to
them. Who will stand up for the worthless? Well, Tory soundbites
differ from the reality and I should know as I see it daily. Are there
lazy people who do not want to work? Yes. I will not lie. However,
these are in the minority. For some it is a transitory phase. Most
do want to work and indeed sign off when the opportunity arises. Not
through force, but for a number of other reasons. If jobs existed in the
numbers that are required, they would find work. It’s all very well Duncan
Smith and McVey spouting that there are x
thousand jobs in the system. If you need experience in z and you only have experience in y, you aren’t going to get the job.
“I have witnessed several grown men with learning
needs and disabilities crying and begging not to be sanctioned. I thought
we were meant to help the vulnerable but we are now just a tool to get the
numbers to back up the Coalition agenda.
“The reforms have been designed to hide the numbers
of unemployed. So many have been sanctioned and are not counted in the
official figures. Many are desperate and will take these Mickey Mouse
zero-hour contracts to escape the fortnightly gauntlet. I must also add
truthfully that I had never come across a zero hours vacancy until the last
couple of years. That is not to say they did not exist but I never
encountered one. Now they are everywhere.
“Apprenticeships are another tool to hide
unemployment figures. Very cynical. Older folks will hear the spin
– ’1 million apprenticeships,’ and say ‘great!’. Wrong! Coffee shop
apprentices, call centre apprentices etc, are just a way for employers to
undercut the minimum wage. They are doing this in the thousands.
Who can blame them? £98 per week and then get a new one in after 12
months. Fantastic! Britain now has a time served coffee shop worker to
compete in Cameron’s global race.
“Wage Incentives. This scheme is an absolute
disgrace. Employ an 18 – 24 yr old for 6 months and the taxpayer will
give you £2.5k. Paid at minimum wage you will make a profit even if you
get them to lick stamps. Vacancies that were full paid jobs are now changing to
Wage Incentive vacancies as Job-centre staff convince employers to accept money
for nothing. This is seriously affecting the jobs market and it is all
down to Coalition pressure to increase Wage Incentive targets. They can
then claim falsely that the scheme has created 1000’s of vacancies, when in
truth it hasn’t. The vacancies were already there. The taxpayer has
just paid 2.5k to employ A instead of B. Economic sense? Nope.”
Have you referred claimants to
a food bank? If so, what were the reasons? Can you tell us about any
experiences in particular?
“I have referred several customers to food
banks. Mainly following a sanction. Although we were instructed to
‘signpost’ rather than ‘refer’, several months ago, after the press got hold of
what we were doing. Prior to this we did have official instructions from
a senior level to refer to food banks after the withdrawal of ‘Crisis
Loans’. I have personally arranged food parcel deliveries for customers
who for various reasons have ran out of food. I do not know how they
manage on £71 or £56 per week.”
Jobcentre Adviser: “I am unable to emphasise enough, what
a massive con and waste of taxpayer’s money the Work Programme is.”
Interview 3 – April 30th
2014
Have you ever experienced any use of
target culture for sanctioning? If not, what are you told about sanctioning? If
yes, how are you told to sanction and by who?
“This is the type of thing that
would not be out of place in the novel ‘Catch 22’. We are constantly told by
managers ‘there are no targets, only expectations.’ However, the expectations
are based on the highest performing local offices or Districts. So, say I work
with a colleague who sanctions because they get some sort of sick power kick
from it (I do know some people like this, there are some in every
office). They might refer 7 people for a ‘doubt on their actively
seeking’ per day.
In your team meetings or one-to-one,
it will be mentioned, and staff will be asked why they haven’t got as many.
Regardless of what the DWP official line is, nobody is ever reprimanded for
referring too many. The only time that would come up is if a large amount of
the referrals were allowed (not sanctioned) by the Decision Maker because they
were poor quality – i.e. the evidence sent over was poor or the person had
actually shown they had done sufficient searches for their Jobseeker’s
Allowance. Some staff are getting scared that they aren’t doing enough and they
will be marked in the ‘must improve’ category. Enough warnings and you could be
out of a job. So Iain Duncan Smith will tell you that there are no targets and
if any manager is still using the term target they will get a reprimand.
However, I have seen the District tables which clearly show the direction an
office is travelling in with regards to sanctions and referrals. Offices which
are lower than the highest performing office will be told they must aim towards
similar numbers or else. They are too crafty to put anything in an email, or at
least most of them are.”
What have been your experiences of
the success/failure of the Work Programme? Have you referred many people onto
it?
“I have referred hundreds. I am unable
to emphasise enough what a massive con and waste of taxpayer’s money this is.
Daily, I speak to those poor souls on this mad scheme and many who have
returned after a 2 year stint. How journalists have not scooped this, I do not
know. The payment by results contract is an incentive to do nothing. Look
at it like this; you are a private company paid to get people into work. You
have a financial investment. Who do you invest that money in? Mr Jones who is
highly educated and has only recently been made redundant? Or Mr Simpson who
has been out of work for years and needs everything from numeracy and literacy
training to PC skills? Mr Jones may only need a £50 interview suit or most
likely no intervention at all – he will find work on his own. Bingo! The Government
will pay you £2,500 if he starts work and stays there for 6 months. You could
invest a hell of a lot of your staff resources and profits in getting Mr
Simpson to a job ready state, but it’s a huge gamble. You get a higher reward
but your losses are higher if he doesn’t find work. Private companies do not
like this kind of risk. This is why it is now without question that Work
Programme providers ‘park’ the harder to help customers. I have seen this
relentlessly for the past couple of years and I do not think anyone could deny
this is what happens. I ask customers what the WP is doing for them and they
tell me they are lucky if they get a phone call every few months. But, if this
person finds a job on his own (which does happen) the WP provider could get
£12,000+.”
Are you told to give a full
description of the help the jobcentre can provide in the form of money for
travel expenses to job interviews, or courses that are available? If so, how
many take this help up? If not, why not/by who?
“It is not advertised openly. The
hope is that the jobseeker will fund expensive training themselves. If they ask
then we will put the case forward to pay it. The District fund for this is
finite so each case must be looked at on merit. Sometimes the procurement process
is so slow the jobseeker will borrow the money from relatives to gain the
training they need. The travel to interview expenses have never been openly
advertised, as it is hoped that they will fund this themselves. I must say that
the chances of funding from DWP are a lot better than for those on the WP.”
What one policy would you change to
help jobseekers?
“A tricky one. I couldn’t nail it
down to one thing as so much is currently wrong. You see most of the things we
do are dictated by Ministers and Senior Civil Servants. At most, they pop in to
sit by you for an afternoon to see what you do. They then think they know how
to improve or change things but they don’t. It’s all half-arsed hair-brained
back of a beer mat type stuff. No one feeds back up the line when something is
not working. The DWP is full to the brim of yes men. Take Universal
Jobmatch; staff have been saying that it’s garbage since it was introduced.
Staff locked out of it, jobseekers and employers cannot use it. It’s loaded
with duplicates and non-jobs but we are told by DWP Press Office that it has
revolutionised the way people look for work. We are told we must use it
and must sell it to Jobseekers.”
“But back to your question, I would
scrap the Work Programme. I would invest the millions spent on this into
real training for Jobseekers.”
That’s all for
today.
Let’s just remind
ourselves of a few key phrases here:
“The reforms have been designed to hide the numbers of unemployed.”
“The DWP is full to the
brim of yes men.”
And
possibly my favourite:
“I am unable to emphasise enough
what a massive con and waste of taxpayer’s money this (work programme) is”
A tragic
indictment of IDS’s incompetence.
Kind regards
Pholly
No comments:
Post a Comment