Tory scum make lying, insulting and patronising response to workfare petition(203 Posts)
It's just unbelievable. Who do they think they're talking to?
MPs blast government's flagship Work Programme
After more than a year the multibillion-pound scheme has helped just 3.6% of long-term unemployed find jobs
The government's flagship multibillion-pound programme for helping the long-term unemployed into work has been branded "extremely poor" in a damning assessment by MPs.
The public accounts committee (PAC) said that during the first 14 months of the Work Programme, to last July, only 3.6% of claimants on the scheme moved off benefits into sustained employment.
This was less than a third of the 11.9% the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) expected to achieve, and well below the official estimate of what would have happened if the programme had not been launched, said the MPs.
Margaret Hodge, who chairs the committee, said the programme was particularly failing young people and the hardest to help.
She said: "It is shocking that of the 9,500 former incapacity benefit claimants referred to providers, only 20 people have been placed in a job that has lasted three months, while the poorest-performing provider did not manage to place a single person in the under-25 category into a job lasting six months."
She also criticised the DWP for publishing unvalidated data from a trade body representing Work Programme providers, saying: "This is just not on."
The programme was introduced in June 2011, at an estimated cost of between £3bn and £5bn over five years, but PAC said the performance in the first year or so fell well short of expectations.
Not one of the 18 providers met its contractual targets and their performance varied "wildly", the report found.
The MPs warned that, given the poor performance, there was a high risk that one or more providers would fail and go out of business or have their contracts cancelled.
"Given the poor performance across providers, there is a high risk that one or more will fail either they will go out of business or the department will cancel their contracts," the report says. "The Department will need to keep a close eye on which providers are most likely to fail and must manage all consequential risks."
The report also reveals that all 18 organisations involved in the Work Programme, which include companies such as A4e and Ingeus Deloitte, have been placed on "performance improvement plans" and that in seven cases, organisations had been sent formal letters warning of unacceptable standards.
The next set of performance data will be published in March, which PAC said should give the DWP a better idea about companies that may go out of business or have contracts terminated, and urged the department to prepare specific contingency plans should failure occur.
Hodge said, that although the Work Programme was crucial, its performance "was so poor that it was actually worse than the department's own expectations of the number of people who would have found work if the programme didn't exist."
"None of the providers managed to meet their minimum performance targets. The best performing provider only moved 5% of people off benefits and into work, while the worst managed just 2%."
The DWP said PAC was painting "a skewed picture" and that industry data also published in November showed that 200,000 people had been placed in work. The department believes that a large proportion of these will turn out to meet the payment criteria of jobs sustained for at least six months and this will show up in the next round of data.
A DWP spokesperson said: "The Work Programme gives support to claimants for two years and it hasn't even been running that long yet, so it's still early days. We know the performance of our providers is improving Long-term unemployment fell by 15,000 in the latest quarter."
Previous schemes, the department said, had paid out "too much up front regardless of success. But by paying providers for delivering results, the Work Programme is actually offering the taxpayer real value for money."
Kirsty McHugh, chief executive of the back to work industry body, the Employment Related Services Association, said, "The public accounts committee should rightly focus on the Work Programme achieving value for money for the taxpayer, and data published by ERSA shows that the Work Programme is the most cost effective scheme relative to any comparable scheme so far.
"'These outcome statistics relate to the earliest days of the Work Programme and caution is needed before we can judge its overall effectiveness.
"However, robust data published by ERSA last November shows that the Work Programme is placing more people into work month on month and we can already see the programme having a demonstrable impact in reducing long-term unemployment as evidenced in this week's labour market statistics."
Workfare with vulnerable adults.
ttosca I note you are 'self employed' do you pay the right amount of tax? Most people I know who are 'self employed' pay only what is asked!
Just a thought.......
Listen to serial liar and sociopath Ian Duncan Smith become increasingly agitated as he is called out on his lies and spin:
Iain Duncan-Smith was involved in an explosive bust-up with James O'Brien live on LBC 97.3.
seems a reasonable response and concept to me too. its improving people's CV's and should improve their chances of getting jobs in future. If their skills are good enough to get paid work in a supermarket they obviously don't need to do it unpaid.
the only time i disagree with this is if a paid position is chopped as a result and i think that sometimes this might be difficult to spot.
The people who are genuinely disgusted and outraged by this can help out by sending emails or tweets to the exploitative companies:
List Of Workfare Companies
You will also find an outline of some of the arguments against workfare as well as a template letter at the bottom.
Yes, it's a narrow technical victory. Anti-workfare campaigning will continue, and the negative press which the MWA and other workfare schemes receive as a result of this ruling will help.
Oh dear, it seems that it's more to do with people not being informed of the consequences of not participating. The law will be redrafted and the scheme will continue.
The Court of Appeal have ruled that work for benefits schemes are unlawful. [[ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9864568/Government-back-to-work-scheme-breaches-anti-slavery-laws-court-rules.html Telegraph]]
No one can be forced to participate in Work Programme schemes until they have been redrafted to comply with the Court's ruling .Those who have received sanctions will be able to claim a rebate for monies taken away unlawfully (subject to appeal).
Wonder what IDS will come up with next?
YouGov research for the Trades Union Congress identifies the gulf between public understanding and reality:
Average public perception: 41% of Britains welfare budget goes on benefits to unemployed people. Reality: just 3% does.
Perception: 27% of the welfare budget is claimed fraudulently. Reality (according to the Government): 0.7%.
Perception: an unemployed couple with two school-age children receive £147 a week in jobseekers allowance. Reality: £111.45p.
Perception: only 21% think this family would be better off if one of them got a 30-hour-a-week job on the minimum wage; and this 21% thinks, on average, the gain would be £59 a week. Reality: the family would be £138 a week better off.
There is plainly a link between the perceptions of scrounging, and the lack of public knowledge about the financial advantages of working, even for 30 hours a week on the minimum wage, compared with life on the dole.
Outlines other public perceptions and support for Welfare reform; relevant to this discussion.
> I hope you don't take this the wrong way, ttosca, but do you work?
Yes. Self employed.
> I do understand why people are upset about companies like Tesco benefitting from free (to them) employees, but can also see the advantage of the long term unemployed having something on their CV rather than nothing.
> So on the whole, I think it's a good thing so long as it does what it's supposed to do, ie give people some work experience for their CV, and ideally also some decent training.
As mentioned before, those partaking in the Mandatory Workfare Activity scheme are no more likely (in fact less) to have found work than those who haven't.
Secondly, sometimes the MWA is forced on people who have only been out of work for a short time.
Thirdly, allowing companies to have free unpaid labour suppresses wages and keeps other people out of work who might otherwise be employed.
So you'll end up with more people on the dole queue, being forced in to unpaid work...
> For one thing, it has tax avoidance lumped in with tax evasion, and tax that is uncollected.
Yes, this is true. They should have been separated. It's hard to know the true cost of tax evasion, some estimates put it in the tens of billions. The PCS puts it at £70 Billion:
> And it only talks about welfare overpayments and benefit fraud.
> What about the generous benefits that are given out legally? How are they any different to tax that is avoided?
Which 'generous' benefits? 'Generous' compared with what? Welfare in the UK isn't particularly high relative to our european neighbours.
> Tax evasion is illegal, as is benefit fraud. If you expect one to be dealt with harshly (as I do) then you should expect the same for the other. One is not morally superior to the other just because one is more likely to be committed by the rich and one isn't.
Well, if we want to tackle the deficit, purely for pragmatic reasons, tackling benefit fraud instead of tax evasion is a stupid idea, because the later dwarfs the former.
> Tax avoidance is legal. Tax evasion is not. By lumping the two together you are distorting the truth.
You're right. They should have been separated. It does, however, give you a rough idea of the scale of the amount of money which could potentially be collected if both tax evasion was cracked down on and legal tax loopholes were closed.
"but they only have to work for a few weeks"
Some workfare placements are 6 months.
"at the end of that, they have some experience so more of a chance of getting a proper job."
But there is no requirement to make sure the placement will be something that adds to a person's CV.
Plenty of people with decent qualifications and/or years of experience will be sent on workfare where they are doing the most menial of jobs. For thousands, it will add nothing to their CVs, it will just Neva waste of their time. Many won't even add it to their CV as it'll make the CV look bad.
Fair enough, but they only have to work for a few weeks, and at the end of that, they have some experience so more of a chance of getting a proper job.
"I don't understand how looking for a job can possibly be a full time occupation. I decided to change jobs last summer and managed to fit in the form filling, interviews etc whilst working PT, running my own business and doing two afternoons a week volunteering."
I don't think looking for a job is a full time occupation, but being forced to work full time for nothing will considerably undermine many people's ability to apply for work, without making them any more employable.
What if you're so skint you can't afford the Internet at home and have to go to the library to access job ads?
What if your line of work doesn't get advertised online much and you have to distribute your CV by hand (and you have to walk to do this don't have any money for bus fare because you spent your last pennies on printing CVs and making yourself look presentable)
Having a full time job would seriously get in the way!
"So on the whole, I think it's a good thing so long as it does what it's supposed to do, ie give people some work experience for their CV, and ideally also some decent training."
This might be true if there was any attempt at placing people in MWA jobs which were relevant to their career aspirations, or if training was part of the deal. But neither is true.
Decent training is not part of this scheme. It's about making people turn up to work, that's it. (people will be sent on workfare even id they have never had a problem turning up to work and have decades of experience)
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, ttosca, but do you work?
I don't understand how looking for a job can possibly be a full time occupation. I decided to change jobs last summer and managed to fit in the form filling, interviews etc whilst working PT, running my own business and doing two afternoons a week volunteering.
I do understand why people are upset about companies like Tesco benefitting from free (to them) employees, but can also see the advantage of the long term unemployed having something on their CV rather than nothing.
So on the whole, I think it's a good thing so long as it does what it's supposed to do, ie give people some work experience for their CV, and ideally also some decent training.
That picture is ridiculous and completely misses the point. A link to a diagram with bright colours isn't automatically making a valid point.
For one thing, it has tax avoidance lumped in with tax evasion, and tax that is uncollected.
And it only talks about welfare overpayments and benefit fraud.
What about the generous benefits that are given out legally? How are they any different to tax that is avoided?
Answer - they aren't. They are both perfectly legitimate and legal under the policies we currently live by.
Tax evasion is illegal, as is benefit fraud. If you expect one to be dealt with harshly (as I do) then you should expect the same for the other. One is not morally superior to the other just because one is more likely to be committed by the rich and one isn't.
This is the right move. The universe rewards ACTION. Things comes out of other things. In the US despite the predictable screaming of lefties, workfare recipients report being much happier and fulfilled - and prefer jobs to welfare anytime
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.