I am baffled by the inactivity of workers in the Welfare to Work sector.
Weeks ago I predicted redundancies would fall into the thousands and that providers would try and rewrite the script regarding TUPE regulations and redundancy law. With just a week to go for the start of the new Work Programme my words have tragically become reality.
Many providers who were unsuccessful in securing prime or subcontract work for the new scheme have been forced to shed staff and workers who had previously been working on contracts such as Pathways to Work or NDDP have found themselves superfluous to requirements.
If that wasn’t bad enough, some companies have tried to avoid their responsibilities regarding redundancy pay, forcing some workers to seek legal advice from barristers. Understandably I have not named the company in question because I do not want them to have the chance of preparing a ‘defence’ for their immoral and apparently illegal actions. No doubt the imminent legal action will most probably yield some financial gain to those affected, but in the long term that will be cold comfort when the mortgage or rent needs paying, the kids need new clothes and the ordinary working people, who gave so much to this sector find themselves without jobs.
Other employers have blatantly lied to staff by suggesting they were ‘being auditioned’ by potential employers under TUPE regulations. Apparently no-one told the top management of the company that new providers cannot cherry pick their staff under TUPE rules.
So, workers in the sector, like frogs placed in a saucepan of cold water are sitting there, doing nothing whilst management systematically turn up the heat and boil them alive. The government has remained silent and has done nothing to protect jobs as Boards of Directors systematically culled hundreds and hundreds of jobs in the industry. No-one complained! No-one said this is wrong – in fact there were some in the industry who actually argued it was right that the sector should be streamlined.
It is a tragic state of affairs and it is unlikely to get any better. More redundancies will follow, more companies will either close or substantially downsize and more people will find themselves joining the unemployment queues after having given so many years to this industry. But however wrong it may be, it will not change until workers in the sector are willing to face facts and radicalize.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not talking about organizing some kind of revolution – it simply isn’t going to happen. No, this is far more fundamental and requires workers in the sector to recognize they are working for employers who don’t give a toss for their welfare and will dismiss them without a thought when times are hard. The only defence against such oppression is to combine and unite under the common banner of the trade union movement.
This isn’t about trying to take things back to the 1960s and ‘taking on’ the government. This is about bringing workers rights into the 21st century and showing employers that staff in this sector will not be bullied and abused. They will not accept illegal redundancies and they will not tolerate the misuse of TUPE regulations.
This is what the industry needs, but the danger is the water has already started to boil and the frog may be dead.
Showing posts with label welfare to work. Show all posts
Showing posts with label welfare to work. Show all posts
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
Monday, 16 May 2011
A silent and illegal culling
I am disturbed by the number of reports I am receiving of situations where people in the welfare to work sector are facing redundancy and management are, either through lack of understanding, or intentionally are treating unaffected staff unfairly.
In one group of cases brought to my attention an employer is trying to force staff to accept either reduced hours or redundancy. Clearly, people affected are in something of a “Catch-22” situation because if they accept the former then later they are made redundant, the payment will be based on the reduced hour’s income and not their original full-time salary. On the other hand, if they go for redundancy today they lose any potential income between now and the end of the FND contract and may find themselves separated from any future TUPE considerations that may apply.
Fortunately for them the company is acting illegally under the Employment Rights Act, 1996 as they cannot force staff to make such a choice and the reduced hour’s option can only be adopted if ALL the staff agree.
The second situation involved a small to medium sized provider who, once they heard they had lost all their contracts set about implementing a high-powered campaign to place as many of their clients in jobs as possible. Caseworkers, job matchers and employer engagement staff were all encouraged to treble their efforts on the grounds it would make them more attractive to a new employer.
As staff became increasingly more unsettled the hierarchy set about visiting various locations “reassuring” staff they would all be considered by the new provider for TUPE. Then they committed the ultimate “no-no” – first they told all staff their jobs were safe and that everyone would be TUPE’d over to the new provider. This is factually inaccurate, but not illegal. The reality is that the new provider will inform the old one of how many staff they will require and these will be selected from those on the TUPE list. Selection is usually determined by simple factors such as proximity to the new place of work, or the match between the old job and the new one.
The second “no-no” was more alarming. Here the employer advised staff to increase their efforts as TUPE’d staff would be selected according to performance and those with poor results would not be transferred over to the new employer. This is both factually wrong and illegal. The new provider is not allowed to “cherry-pick” staff in this way and if they attempt to and reject certain staff, the people concerned could bring a case of unfair dismissal against both the old and the new provider.
Finally, there has been the broad lack of information that has and continues to pervades the sector – the “Will I or won’t I be transferred under TUPE regulations” question that has bounced around the sector for weeks. New and old providers have used a variety of cons to avoid answering this question, ranging from the lack of information coming from DWP, through to the uncertainty of what programmes are eligible for TUPE transfer.
Much of this had been decided weeks before and the fact that employers failed to advise staff is disturbing. Most providers knew many weeks ago that ESF funded projects, Pathways to Work and NDDP would not be eligible for consideration under the TUPE guidelines, yet it has taken until very recently for most employees to be aware of their position. Why has it taken so long when the information was known to management weeks ago?
The there has, and remains the issue of who will, or will not be TUPE’d. Now, primes will be aware of their staffing requirements to run the new project as this will have been factored in during their bid writing exercise. Similarly, nearly all of their supply chain will have been put in place when the bid was submitted and mf these will have had to calculate their expected staff requirement. Therefore it follows that in each CPA successful providers know how many staff they have and how many more they need. Now, if new providers know that in a certain CPA they require 100 new staff, it follows most of these will be accessed under TUPE transfer. Unfortunately, this information is not being made available and so staff are being left hanging in the hope they will be selected, but with the uncertainty there may not be any job to transfer into.
New employers could have outlined their requirements and shortfalls – they did not. Why? Were they frightened that frontline staff would suddenly see the extent of the disparity between the staff requirement for FNF and the new Work Programme. Were they trying to hide the fact that hundreds have and will be made redundant as a result of this new provision?
The way staff in the sector have been treated over the past few weeks is an absolute disgrace and has frequently crossed the boundaries of legality. Certainly there have been a number of occasions where employers have stayed within the law, but crossed the borders of morality by using redundancy law for their own ends in order to reduce the period of notice.
It is a disgrace and it has scarred the sector for many years to come. If there is any justice providers will be facing weeks and months of litigation as they try to resolve the increasing number of complaints of unfair dismissal.
What is also disturbing is the extent of silence amongst politicians. They have said nothing about the scale of the redundancies and done little to lobby the minister. By the time something is done it will be too late and hundreds will already be signing on – many will never secure work in the sector again.
One thing is clear, after behaving towards staff in such an inappropriate, inconsiderate and sometimes illegal way, no-one left in the sector should be under any illusion about their bosses. The evidence of the past weeks has shown how many of them pay lip service to ‘caring’ for their staff, whilst looking for the cheapest way to get rid of them when times are hard.
Proving once again – you just can’t trust bosses!
In one group of cases brought to my attention an employer is trying to force staff to accept either reduced hours or redundancy. Clearly, people affected are in something of a “Catch-22” situation because if they accept the former then later they are made redundant, the payment will be based on the reduced hour’s income and not their original full-time salary. On the other hand, if they go for redundancy today they lose any potential income between now and the end of the FND contract and may find themselves separated from any future TUPE considerations that may apply.
Fortunately for them the company is acting illegally under the Employment Rights Act, 1996 as they cannot force staff to make such a choice and the reduced hour’s option can only be adopted if ALL the staff agree.
The second situation involved a small to medium sized provider who, once they heard they had lost all their contracts set about implementing a high-powered campaign to place as many of their clients in jobs as possible. Caseworkers, job matchers and employer engagement staff were all encouraged to treble their efforts on the grounds it would make them more attractive to a new employer.
As staff became increasingly more unsettled the hierarchy set about visiting various locations “reassuring” staff they would all be considered by the new provider for TUPE. Then they committed the ultimate “no-no” – first they told all staff their jobs were safe and that everyone would be TUPE’d over to the new provider. This is factually inaccurate, but not illegal. The reality is that the new provider will inform the old one of how many staff they will require and these will be selected from those on the TUPE list. Selection is usually determined by simple factors such as proximity to the new place of work, or the match between the old job and the new one.
The second “no-no” was more alarming. Here the employer advised staff to increase their efforts as TUPE’d staff would be selected according to performance and those with poor results would not be transferred over to the new employer. This is both factually wrong and illegal. The new provider is not allowed to “cherry-pick” staff in this way and if they attempt to and reject certain staff, the people concerned could bring a case of unfair dismissal against both the old and the new provider.
Finally, there has been the broad lack of information that has and continues to pervades the sector – the “Will I or won’t I be transferred under TUPE regulations” question that has bounced around the sector for weeks. New and old providers have used a variety of cons to avoid answering this question, ranging from the lack of information coming from DWP, through to the uncertainty of what programmes are eligible for TUPE transfer.
Much of this had been decided weeks before and the fact that employers failed to advise staff is disturbing. Most providers knew many weeks ago that ESF funded projects, Pathways to Work and NDDP would not be eligible for consideration under the TUPE guidelines, yet it has taken until very recently for most employees to be aware of their position. Why has it taken so long when the information was known to management weeks ago?
The there has, and remains the issue of who will, or will not be TUPE’d. Now, primes will be aware of their staffing requirements to run the new project as this will have been factored in during their bid writing exercise. Similarly, nearly all of their supply chain will have been put in place when the bid was submitted and mf these will have had to calculate their expected staff requirement. Therefore it follows that in each CPA successful providers know how many staff they have and how many more they need. Now, if new providers know that in a certain CPA they require 100 new staff, it follows most of these will be accessed under TUPE transfer. Unfortunately, this information is not being made available and so staff are being left hanging in the hope they will be selected, but with the uncertainty there may not be any job to transfer into.
New employers could have outlined their requirements and shortfalls – they did not. Why? Were they frightened that frontline staff would suddenly see the extent of the disparity between the staff requirement for FNF and the new Work Programme. Were they trying to hide the fact that hundreds have and will be made redundant as a result of this new provision?
The way staff in the sector have been treated over the past few weeks is an absolute disgrace and has frequently crossed the boundaries of legality. Certainly there have been a number of occasions where employers have stayed within the law, but crossed the borders of morality by using redundancy law for their own ends in order to reduce the period of notice.
It is a disgrace and it has scarred the sector for many years to come. If there is any justice providers will be facing weeks and months of litigation as they try to resolve the increasing number of complaints of unfair dismissal.
What is also disturbing is the extent of silence amongst politicians. They have said nothing about the scale of the redundancies and done little to lobby the minister. By the time something is done it will be too late and hundreds will already be signing on – many will never secure work in the sector again.
One thing is clear, after behaving towards staff in such an inappropriate, inconsiderate and sometimes illegal way, no-one left in the sector should be under any illusion about their bosses. The evidence of the past weeks has shown how many of them pay lip service to ‘caring’ for their staff, whilst looking for the cheapest way to get rid of them when times are hard.
Proving once again – you just can’t trust bosses!
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Not in my name
Did anyone else hear about the Rally against Debt last Saturday? It seems about 350 people demonstrated in support of Government cuts and that it would be immoral to leave the debt to future generations.
It believed in substantial spending cuts sooner rather than later to avoid seeing more taxes going on debt interest, not paying for services.
Protesters held placards bearing messages including "Drowning in debt", "No more EU bailouts" and "Stop spending money you don't have".
Some of the crazies on this ‘demo’ included known Conservative activist, Matthew Sinclair, who attended under the banner of the Taxpayer's Alliance and said the cuts are essential:
"The country's facing a choice. It's facing a choice between racking up more and more debt and spending decades with taxpayers' burden and with the economy dragged down by that incredible debt. Or we start to take action to cut spending, to deliver better value and to start to rebuild our economic fortunes."
Other notable right-wingers attending included UKIP MEP Nigel Farage, who said: "We want to make it clear that not a penny more of British taxpayers' money should be spent on Euro bail-outs...and we regard giving £40m a day to Brussels for our membership of this union is giving us bad value for money. So from that little lot you get a fairly big shopping list of real, good, sensible cuts that could be made and we could perhaps keep a few more local libraries open."
With so few people attending you would have thought they would have been too embarrassed to call it a rally, wouldn’t you? But no, these are die-hard Tories we are talking about and they wanted to show those who attended the TUC demonstration earlier this year (yes, the one with half a million protesters) that there was an alternative voice.
Now let me get this right – this band of nutters think a fiasco in London can stand alongside one of the greatest demonstrations against government policy since the time of the Poll Tax resistance. Could I just remind them they were outnumbered on a ration of 1:1428!!!!
If this is the best the Tories can do then we have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, they are usually far better organised and far more capable of causing bedlam to our society.
As we speak, hundreds of welfare to work staff are facing redundancy as they wait to hear if they will have a job for the next five years. Many won’t and will be forced to become clients of the new Work Programme themselves. Throughout, the government have been notable only by their silence and Chris Grayling, the architect of this demise has failed to answer accusations that he has watched whilst Rome burns.
The new Work programme will operate with fewer staff, yet will be expected to achieve better results than its predecessor, Flexible New Deal. As one writer recently said:
“… the delivery model is basically the same for A4e except we are being told to push the customers harder and not allow being on programme to become the easy option.”
But this isn’t just an A4e problem, it is across the entire sector and the government have failed to invest correctly, resulting in a programme that will be unable to achieve any better result than those before it, and at a cost of substantial redundancies for those who have been working in the sector for many years.
This lack of investment and strategic ineptitude was further exposed last week when the Department for Work and Pensions abandoned plans to introduce a system to automate the processing of all benefit claims. The DWP said that the system would still require "human intervention". In other words, they hadn’t thought it through, spent a fortune trying to get it to work and then found it wasn’t suitable.
The same disaster is set to hit the NHS as Citizen Dave continues his plans to “reform” the service. Unfortunately, some of those nasty discontents in the Lib Dems seem likely to put a spanner in the works and slow down or stop any of his plans. This won’t be enough to stop Citizen Dave – he is a man on a mission, even though the British Medical Association and some Labour MPs have expressed concern that the plans will allow private health firms to get a stronger foothold in the NHS.
The critics argue that the bill will allow competition law to be applied to the health service and lead to a much greater involvement, which in turn could undermine local NHS hospitals. The BMA has even likened it to the privatisation of utility industries.
But Citizen Dave, like the 350 who attended the “rally” in London last week refuse to listen to reason – they are Tories after all. Their venom is constantly being spat out and regurgitated by the media. Take the fact that the national media bothered to report the rally in the first place. It is another significant coup for the right because it tries to show how they represent the views of the majority.
Well, I refuse to have my name associated with the tragedy happening to the welfare to work sector. I do not wish to see changes to the NHS so that the private sector can cream off millions of pounds in profit.
When the Tories destroy our society, let the message be clear – they are not doing it in my name.
It believed in substantial spending cuts sooner rather than later to avoid seeing more taxes going on debt interest, not paying for services.
Protesters held placards bearing messages including "Drowning in debt", "No more EU bailouts" and "Stop spending money you don't have".
Some of the crazies on this ‘demo’ included known Conservative activist, Matthew Sinclair, who attended under the banner of the Taxpayer's Alliance and said the cuts are essential:
"The country's facing a choice. It's facing a choice between racking up more and more debt and spending decades with taxpayers' burden and with the economy dragged down by that incredible debt. Or we start to take action to cut spending, to deliver better value and to start to rebuild our economic fortunes."
Other notable right-wingers attending included UKIP MEP Nigel Farage, who said: "We want to make it clear that not a penny more of British taxpayers' money should be spent on Euro bail-outs...and we regard giving £40m a day to Brussels for our membership of this union is giving us bad value for money. So from that little lot you get a fairly big shopping list of real, good, sensible cuts that could be made and we could perhaps keep a few more local libraries open."
With so few people attending you would have thought they would have been too embarrassed to call it a rally, wouldn’t you? But no, these are die-hard Tories we are talking about and they wanted to show those who attended the TUC demonstration earlier this year (yes, the one with half a million protesters) that there was an alternative voice.
Now let me get this right – this band of nutters think a fiasco in London can stand alongside one of the greatest demonstrations against government policy since the time of the Poll Tax resistance. Could I just remind them they were outnumbered on a ration of 1:1428!!!!
If this is the best the Tories can do then we have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, they are usually far better organised and far more capable of causing bedlam to our society.
As we speak, hundreds of welfare to work staff are facing redundancy as they wait to hear if they will have a job for the next five years. Many won’t and will be forced to become clients of the new Work Programme themselves. Throughout, the government have been notable only by their silence and Chris Grayling, the architect of this demise has failed to answer accusations that he has watched whilst Rome burns.
The new Work programme will operate with fewer staff, yet will be expected to achieve better results than its predecessor, Flexible New Deal. As one writer recently said:
“… the delivery model is basically the same for A4e except we are being told to push the customers harder and not allow being on programme to become the easy option.”
But this isn’t just an A4e problem, it is across the entire sector and the government have failed to invest correctly, resulting in a programme that will be unable to achieve any better result than those before it, and at a cost of substantial redundancies for those who have been working in the sector for many years.
This lack of investment and strategic ineptitude was further exposed last week when the Department for Work and Pensions abandoned plans to introduce a system to automate the processing of all benefit claims. The DWP said that the system would still require "human intervention". In other words, they hadn’t thought it through, spent a fortune trying to get it to work and then found it wasn’t suitable.
The same disaster is set to hit the NHS as Citizen Dave continues his plans to “reform” the service. Unfortunately, some of those nasty discontents in the Lib Dems seem likely to put a spanner in the works and slow down or stop any of his plans. This won’t be enough to stop Citizen Dave – he is a man on a mission, even though the British Medical Association and some Labour MPs have expressed concern that the plans will allow private health firms to get a stronger foothold in the NHS.
The critics argue that the bill will allow competition law to be applied to the health service and lead to a much greater involvement, which in turn could undermine local NHS hospitals. The BMA has even likened it to the privatisation of utility industries.
But Citizen Dave, like the 350 who attended the “rally” in London last week refuse to listen to reason – they are Tories after all. Their venom is constantly being spat out and regurgitated by the media. Take the fact that the national media bothered to report the rally in the first place. It is another significant coup for the right because it tries to show how they represent the views of the majority.
Well, I refuse to have my name associated with the tragedy happening to the welfare to work sector. I do not wish to see changes to the NHS so that the private sector can cream off millions of pounds in profit.
When the Tories destroy our society, let the message be clear – they are not doing it in my name.
at
22:30
0
comments
Labels:
A4e,
Citizen Dave,
Conservative,
David Cameron,
DWP,
NHS,
redundancies,
unemployment,
welfare to work,
Work Programme
0
comments
Labels:
A4e,
Citizen Dave,
Conservative,
David Cameron,
DWP,
NHS,
redundancies,
unemployment,
welfare to work,
Work Programme
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Welfare to work and the 'lobster' effect
Most readers are aware that if you place a lobster in boiling water it will jump out. Yet, if you place it in cold water and increase the heat slowly it will stay in the pot until it eventually dies. If ever there was a living example of how that applies to humanity it is in the current behaviour of welfare to work staff.
Several weeks ago the government announced the closure of Pathways to Work and NDDP contracts and this was soon followed by the awarding of new contracts for the Tory flagship Work Programme. Analysts have long argued that Pathways to work and NDDP were destined for the ‘chop’ so it came as no surprise – yet a sizable number of people working in the industry seemed astonished the axe had fallen.
In a similar vein, the new prime and subcontractors are starting to recruit their staff for the delivery of the new contract. This has already meant that considerable numbers of people have been given redundancy notices and others have been advised they will be subject to TUPE regulations.
I have long argued that the new programme will not require anything like the numbers needed for the previous Flexible New Deal contract. Sadly, my insights are now starting to come to fruition. A number of large organisations have already started the process of ridding themselves of surplus staff, whilst a number have already started the process of TUPE’ing staff over to the new provider.
Inevitably this will mean that sooner or later new providers will ‘fill their books’ and have all the staff they need, leaving many staff who currently work for providers who lost out on the provision out on a limb.
Information coming in already suggests that at least three providers are without any work whatsoever after September, 2011 and this will mean they will have no need for any operational staff after that time. Unfortunately none of these companies have contacted the new providers to begin TUPE negotiations so this will inevitably leave everyone out in the cold and could result in at least 1,000 redundancies.
Overall it is unclear how many people will lose their jobs throughout the sector. Information from companies is deliberately vague and their employees are being fed little to no information. In most instances staff are being advised not to worry because they will be ‘subject to TUPE@ - but existing evidence has already shown this does not automatically mean they will still remain unemployed. Indeed, the available evidence is very much that because the financial model required by DWP was so close to the edge, most providers were forced to produce delivery designs where less staff would be required to achieve more, for less money.
Had the industry stated at the beginning of February that within six months 2 – 3,000 people (and possibly more) would be booted from their jobs there would have been an outcry. Staff would have been writing to the papers and to their MP; Grayling would have faced a picket line when he spoke at the Welfare to Work conference; some organisations might have had to contend with industrial action to protect jobs; MPs would have been asking questions in the House of Commons.
Instead the bosses remained silent – and if they did say anything, they told and continue to tell half-truths., or downright lies. Typical of this is A4e, who recently put staff in areas where they did not win on redundancy notice. The hope is that following TUPE consultation all of these people will move over to new employers – but of course this depends if they have vacancies. Also, some are starting to realise that local delivery managers may not be subject to TUPE and could find themselves out on their ear.
Sadly the people in the sector are almost certainly not going to do anything about it. Like ducks in the pond they are all waiting for the hunter to come and shoot them. Whilst they wait for the slaughter to begin most of these good people are working like Trojans in the hope that above average performance will somehow give them the chance of a new job.
It is very, very sad and people’s lives will be decimated because Duncan Smith and Grayling wanted to make their mark on the industry. Well they have – and as the cull begins, the blood is dripping from their hands.
Several weeks ago the government announced the closure of Pathways to Work and NDDP contracts and this was soon followed by the awarding of new contracts for the Tory flagship Work Programme. Analysts have long argued that Pathways to work and NDDP were destined for the ‘chop’ so it came as no surprise – yet a sizable number of people working in the industry seemed astonished the axe had fallen.
In a similar vein, the new prime and subcontractors are starting to recruit their staff for the delivery of the new contract. This has already meant that considerable numbers of people have been given redundancy notices and others have been advised they will be subject to TUPE regulations.
I have long argued that the new programme will not require anything like the numbers needed for the previous Flexible New Deal contract. Sadly, my insights are now starting to come to fruition. A number of large organisations have already started the process of ridding themselves of surplus staff, whilst a number have already started the process of TUPE’ing staff over to the new provider.
Inevitably this will mean that sooner or later new providers will ‘fill their books’ and have all the staff they need, leaving many staff who currently work for providers who lost out on the provision out on a limb.
Information coming in already suggests that at least three providers are without any work whatsoever after September, 2011 and this will mean they will have no need for any operational staff after that time. Unfortunately none of these companies have contacted the new providers to begin TUPE negotiations so this will inevitably leave everyone out in the cold and could result in at least 1,000 redundancies.
Overall it is unclear how many people will lose their jobs throughout the sector. Information from companies is deliberately vague and their employees are being fed little to no information. In most instances staff are being advised not to worry because they will be ‘subject to TUPE@ - but existing evidence has already shown this does not automatically mean they will still remain unemployed. Indeed, the available evidence is very much that because the financial model required by DWP was so close to the edge, most providers were forced to produce delivery designs where less staff would be required to achieve more, for less money.
Had the industry stated at the beginning of February that within six months 2 – 3,000 people (and possibly more) would be booted from their jobs there would have been an outcry. Staff would have been writing to the papers and to their MP; Grayling would have faced a picket line when he spoke at the Welfare to Work conference; some organisations might have had to contend with industrial action to protect jobs; MPs would have been asking questions in the House of Commons.
Instead the bosses remained silent – and if they did say anything, they told and continue to tell half-truths., or downright lies. Typical of this is A4e, who recently put staff in areas where they did not win on redundancy notice. The hope is that following TUPE consultation all of these people will move over to new employers – but of course this depends if they have vacancies. Also, some are starting to realise that local delivery managers may not be subject to TUPE and could find themselves out on their ear.
Sadly the people in the sector are almost certainly not going to do anything about it. Like ducks in the pond they are all waiting for the hunter to come and shoot them. Whilst they wait for the slaughter to begin most of these good people are working like Trojans in the hope that above average performance will somehow give them the chance of a new job.
It is very, very sad and people’s lives will be decimated because Duncan Smith and Grayling wanted to make their mark on the industry. Well they have – and as the cull begins, the blood is dripping from their hands.
at
22:31
0
comments
Labels:
Chris Grayling,
FND,
Iain Duncan Smith,
TUPE,
welfare to work,
Work Programme
0
comments
Labels:
Chris Grayling,
FND,
Iain Duncan Smith,
TUPE,
welfare to work,
Work Programme
Monday, 18 April 2011
We are in this together
Following my call yesterday for attendees of the Welfare to Work conference in June to ‘Turn they Back on Grayling’ there has been a flurry of email response from readers.
The vast majority were completely in favour of action to force the government to rethink some of their ideas on welfare to work and many supported my call for action.
Before other readers start feeing sorry for Mr Grayling please remember this is a man with an estimated personal wealth of £500, 000 and who owns four London homes. Despite his personal wealth, he still had no qualms about charging the state £40, 000 for refurbishments to one of these houses.
Iain Duncan Smith is a fair bit better off with a personal wealth estimated at £1m and owns two homes. He owes his apparent wealth to his wife, Betsy and lives in a £1million house provided by her father, the 5th Baron Cottesloe, which appears to be tied up in a series of complex family trusts.
I am sure the fact these two ministers are so comfortably off will offer great solace to the hundreds of welfare to work staff now facing redundancy. As they look forward to a future sitting ‘the other side of the desk’ at Jobcentres, these hard-working professionals will no doubt sleep much better at night knowing Duncan Smith and Grayling are able to afford the life of Reilly. And the thanks the state will give them for helping so many people back into work? A measly £67.50 or £105.95 a week if they are a married couple or living with a partner.
The time has come to stand up and take action and following a significant response to earlier posting I am proposing that staff in the sector set up a Welfare to Work Action Group (WAG) with the aim of campaigning on a variety of levels – these to be decided ultimately by those who ‘sign up’ to the concept.
Amongst issues that could be raised are the following:
1. Opposition to the government’s ill-planned Work Programme that has already been shown to offer little for the Third Sector and is unlikely to provide any real benefit to the unemployed.
2. Greater levels of equality between frontline workers and senior management and directors (including CEOs). This is not to suggest they should not be well paid, but the difference between the lowest paid and the highest should be no more than 10 times the salary. Thus, if the lowest paid frontline worker earns £16, 000 per year then the Chief Executive can only earn £160, 000
3. Professionalisation of the industry – this should not be determined by an independent think tank and a group of providers as can be seen in the POWER group, it should be determined by the staff themselves.
4. A total rethink on the way the industry is funded. Currently all staff are only secure in their jobs for 5-years. After that time they are often under threat of redundancy and, if lucky, subject to TUPE transfer. It is a disgrace and I know of no other career that places professionals in such a position. Ask yourself the question – would nurses, doctors, teachers or social workers accept such treatment?
These are just a few ideas. They are not exclusive and the ones I have proposed are not set in stone. They are merely discussion points to drive the Group forward.
If you are interested in being part of a radical group dedicated to campaigning and promoting an alternative view of welfare to work, whilst supporting staff who work in the sector then please write to me. The email is at the top of this blog.
If you do not have time to become involved, but essentially support the notion of a group, still contact. Your name can be added to a mailing list and we can keep you informed of what is happening.
This will be a members’ organisation, with policies and campaigns determined by the membership – it will not be a mouthpiece for this blog.
Help start the fightback to preserve services for the unemployed and save jobs in the industry. The more people we have on board, the stronger will be our voice, so tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and encourage them to write in and lend their support.
The vast majority were completely in favour of action to force the government to rethink some of their ideas on welfare to work and many supported my call for action.
Before other readers start feeing sorry for Mr Grayling please remember this is a man with an estimated personal wealth of £500, 000 and who owns four London homes. Despite his personal wealth, he still had no qualms about charging the state £40, 000 for refurbishments to one of these houses.
Iain Duncan Smith is a fair bit better off with a personal wealth estimated at £1m and owns two homes. He owes his apparent wealth to his wife, Betsy and lives in a £1million house provided by her father, the 5th Baron Cottesloe, which appears to be tied up in a series of complex family trusts.
I am sure the fact these two ministers are so comfortably off will offer great solace to the hundreds of welfare to work staff now facing redundancy. As they look forward to a future sitting ‘the other side of the desk’ at Jobcentres, these hard-working professionals will no doubt sleep much better at night knowing Duncan Smith and Grayling are able to afford the life of Reilly. And the thanks the state will give them for helping so many people back into work? A measly £67.50 or £105.95 a week if they are a married couple or living with a partner.
The time has come to stand up and take action and following a significant response to earlier posting I am proposing that staff in the sector set up a Welfare to Work Action Group (WAG) with the aim of campaigning on a variety of levels – these to be decided ultimately by those who ‘sign up’ to the concept.
Amongst issues that could be raised are the following:
1. Opposition to the government’s ill-planned Work Programme that has already been shown to offer little for the Third Sector and is unlikely to provide any real benefit to the unemployed.
2. Greater levels of equality between frontline workers and senior management and directors (including CEOs). This is not to suggest they should not be well paid, but the difference between the lowest paid and the highest should be no more than 10 times the salary. Thus, if the lowest paid frontline worker earns £16, 000 per year then the Chief Executive can only earn £160, 000
3. Professionalisation of the industry – this should not be determined by an independent think tank and a group of providers as can be seen in the POWER group, it should be determined by the staff themselves.
4. A total rethink on the way the industry is funded. Currently all staff are only secure in their jobs for 5-years. After that time they are often under threat of redundancy and, if lucky, subject to TUPE transfer. It is a disgrace and I know of no other career that places professionals in such a position. Ask yourself the question – would nurses, doctors, teachers or social workers accept such treatment?
These are just a few ideas. They are not exclusive and the ones I have proposed are not set in stone. They are merely discussion points to drive the Group forward.
If you are interested in being part of a radical group dedicated to campaigning and promoting an alternative view of welfare to work, whilst supporting staff who work in the sector then please write to me. The email is at the top of this blog.
If you do not have time to become involved, but essentially support the notion of a group, still contact. Your name can be added to a mailing list and we can keep you informed of what is happening.
This will be a members’ organisation, with policies and campaigns determined by the membership – it will not be a mouthpiece for this blog.
Help start the fightback to preserve services for the unemployed and save jobs in the industry. The more people we have on board, the stronger will be our voice, so tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and encourage them to write in and lend their support.
Sunday, 17 April 2011
Turn your back on Grayling
I continue to find it disturbing that each day I am hearing of more redundancies in the welfare to work sector and nothing is happening. Latest rumours are suggesting 96 people working for Reed in Partnership have been put on consultation (though hopefully a sizable number of these will be absorbed into their restructured operation) and they are joined by a further 700 people from unidentified companies who also are under threat. If these numbers are added to those already known it could result in a loss of more than 2,000 people from the sector by next September. From information supplied by colleagues and supporters of this blog I know of at least one substantial company with approximately 300 employees that could easily ‘go to the wall’ as a result of these new contracts. Sadly the key forums for the sector have failed to respond to this seepage in any proactive manner, largely because the majority of contributors to these sites (Indus Delta, Yes Minister and Carley Consult) are mainly the managers who will be responsible for administering these redundancies. Some in the industry saw this tragic situation emerging long before the results were announced. Indeed the bid documents for the Work Programme set out a criteria guaranteed to make companies underprice themselves and plan projects based on reduced staffing. The documents stated "For each percentage point below the maximum price we will award 1 point of evaluation marks on top of the maximum 60 that are available for quality. For each percentage point reduction above 20 this will drop to an extra 0.5. The percentage reduction and the finance tender mark will be to two decimal places". This simple statement had a direct effect on the future number of people who would be employed in the sector. As on surprisingly frank commentator on Indus Delta stated “This obviously has an impact on the quality of service that can be offered, or the numbers of people that can be paid to deliver that service either directly or in their supply chain.”
Next month, Chris Grayling will dare to show his face at the Welfare to Work Convention in Manchester on 30th June and, no doubt, will be greeted with much applause by the senior managers sat inside – partly because they will be some of the people who have managed to stay in a job whilst many of their colleagues will be outside, either looking for work or, if they are lucky just starting to come to terms with a new employer. It is critical the sector tells Grayling how distressed they are with the administration of this new welfare to work scheme and how it has led to large scale redundancies throughout the industry. Sadly the evidence would suggest the industry is surrounded by apathy and a general belief in its own impotence. It sees itself more as a victim of circumstance rather than as a proactive part of the process. It is therefore critical at this time that those opposed to the cuts vocalise their opposition to the redundancies that are happening across the country. As part of this I call on the Coalition of Resistance, the Right to Work Campaign, UK Uncut, the broader trade union movement, socialist and radicals to organise now so we can picket the conference and let Grayling here our voice. Can you imagine the press reaction if the audience stood as Grayling was speaking and simply turned their back on Grayling? So the campaign begins today. If you are attending the conference I ask you, when Grayling goes to the podium, stand and turn your back throughout his speech. Those of you unable to go to the conference itself but willing to help should contact me directly to organise the picket outside the conference. TURN YOUR BACK ON GRAYLING! We may not win this struggle and save hundreds of jobs, but we can let the Tories know we will not tolerate their lack of care for people’s jobs any longer.
at
22:28
0
comments
Labels:
Chris Grayling,
redundancies,
unemployment,
welfare to work,
Work Programme
0
comments
Labels:
Chris Grayling,
redundancies,
unemployment,
welfare to work,
Work Programme
Monday, 11 April 2011
Welfare to work - doesn't work.
Tomorrow, DWP will announce the latest unemployment figures and if reports in the Times yesterday prove accurate, we can anticipate the number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance will fall by 4,200. What is equally likely is the number of people deemed ‘inactive’ (last month 9,328,000 were put into this category) will remain static or could even rise and there will be no significant decline in the number of people in part-time work.
According to research papers in the House of Commons library, since the recession began there has been a 5.4% increase to 7.9 million in the number of people working part-time. There has been a 3.5% decline in the number working full-time, to 21.2 million. The proportion of part-time workers who state that they are only working part-time because they cannot find a full-time job has increased from 9% before the recession to 15% now. This suggests that people are settling for part-time jobs when they would prefer full-time jobs.
Citizen Dave has told us we do not need to worry as the private sector are about to pick up the tab and employ many of these people. However, on this question the jury is still out. Private sector employment is up annually – by a positive-looking 428,000 – leading to an increase in overall employment of 296,000 on the year. But the sorts of jobs that have been created do not suggest a strong labour market recovery:
• 114,000 (39 per cent) are self-employed jobs;
• 12,000 (4 per cent) are unpaid family workers;
• 11,000 (4 per cent) are positions on Government supporting employment programmes;
• 206,000 are part-time (70 per cent); and
• Only 65,000 are full-time employee positions (22 per cent).
Significantly, no-one seems to be asking serious questions about why is this happening? One of the causes is down to the welfare to work industry. Each day thousands of people are required to see staff working for one of the many training providers delivering Flexible New Deal contracts. These contracts require any unemployed person unemployed for over 12-months to attend regular ‘motivational’ meetings with a caseworker with the aim of supporting them back into work.
Seems reasonable so far – except many of these ‘clients’ attending these programmes are encouraged to accept part-time employment often taking a drop in income that is below what they were receiving when they were on benefits. Sounds crazy? Not really when you consider that all of these providers receive a handsome payment for everyone they get into work and off the claimant register.
The fact they are financially worse off as a result of accepting the job is of no concern to staff working for these providers. Their job has been done. But does it make sense to force people into jobs that pay less than the pittance they receive on JSA. Anyone who accuses an unemployed person of being a “scrounger” clearly hasn’t lived on the dole.
Just look at the figures – they hardly offer the jobless a life of luxury:
Contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance
The maximum weekly rates are:
Aged 16 – 24 £53.45
Aged 25 or over £67.50
Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance
The maximum weekly rates are:
Single people, aged under 25 £53.45
Single people, aged 25 or over £67.50
Couples and civil partnerships (both aged 18 or over) £105.95
Lone parent (aged under 18) £53.45
Lone parent (aged 18 or over) £67.50
It doesn’t make sense to force people into such low paid work and it disturbs me that the attitude of some of these frontline workers leans towards this idea. Now, let me be clear – I am not suggesting it is OK to sit back and claim benefit indefinitely without looking for work. It is right there is an expectation that people should seek employment. However, in a culture where the jobs aren’t available it is difficult to accuse the thousands of claimants seeking work of being ‘scroungers’.
Moreover, many of the ‘back to work’ calculations done by these frontline workers often conclude the client would be ‘better off’ taking a part-time job – but these calculations often fail to take into account certain factors such as the hidden expenses of going to work. For example, this morning I will go to work and call into a shop and buy a coffee before arriving at my office. Had I been home I would have put on the kettle. At lunch I will wander through the town looking for a pair of shoes for work. Had I been home I would have worn trainers or slippers – I would not have needed a replacement pair of shoes. The other costs go on.
We need to radically review the way we treat people claiming unemployment benefits. It is not enough to cram them into the first available job just so it gets them off the claimant register. We must work towards helping these people secure permanent full-time sustainable employment.
Now, Iain Duncan Smith would tell us the Work Programme is targeted to achieve just this and with £5bn worth of contracts currently being divvied up between 18 contractors, there is clearly a lot of profit in agreeing with the minister. But with at least 5 people still applying for every job we are a long way off achieving the goal of full employment.
The hard reality is that Work Programme, like Flexible New Deal before it will not work because it is being run ‘for profit’ and whilst this demon is present, providers will always seek quick easy solutions to secure payment.
It is time to accept the inevitable – welfare to work … doesn’t work.
According to research papers in the House of Commons library, since the recession began there has been a 5.4% increase to 7.9 million in the number of people working part-time. There has been a 3.5% decline in the number working full-time, to 21.2 million. The proportion of part-time workers who state that they are only working part-time because they cannot find a full-time job has increased from 9% before the recession to 15% now. This suggests that people are settling for part-time jobs when they would prefer full-time jobs.
Citizen Dave has told us we do not need to worry as the private sector are about to pick up the tab and employ many of these people. However, on this question the jury is still out. Private sector employment is up annually – by a positive-looking 428,000 – leading to an increase in overall employment of 296,000 on the year. But the sorts of jobs that have been created do not suggest a strong labour market recovery:
• 114,000 (39 per cent) are self-employed jobs;
• 12,000 (4 per cent) are unpaid family workers;
• 11,000 (4 per cent) are positions on Government supporting employment programmes;
• 206,000 are part-time (70 per cent); and
• Only 65,000 are full-time employee positions (22 per cent).
Significantly, no-one seems to be asking serious questions about why is this happening? One of the causes is down to the welfare to work industry. Each day thousands of people are required to see staff working for one of the many training providers delivering Flexible New Deal contracts. These contracts require any unemployed person unemployed for over 12-months to attend regular ‘motivational’ meetings with a caseworker with the aim of supporting them back into work.
Seems reasonable so far – except many of these ‘clients’ attending these programmes are encouraged to accept part-time employment often taking a drop in income that is below what they were receiving when they were on benefits. Sounds crazy? Not really when you consider that all of these providers receive a handsome payment for everyone they get into work and off the claimant register.
The fact they are financially worse off as a result of accepting the job is of no concern to staff working for these providers. Their job has been done. But does it make sense to force people into jobs that pay less than the pittance they receive on JSA. Anyone who accuses an unemployed person of being a “scrounger” clearly hasn’t lived on the dole.
Just look at the figures – they hardly offer the jobless a life of luxury:
Contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance
The maximum weekly rates are:
Aged 16 – 24 £53.45
Aged 25 or over £67.50
Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance
The maximum weekly rates are:
Single people, aged under 25 £53.45
Single people, aged 25 or over £67.50
Couples and civil partnerships (both aged 18 or over) £105.95
Lone parent (aged under 18) £53.45
Lone parent (aged 18 or over) £67.50
It doesn’t make sense to force people into such low paid work and it disturbs me that the attitude of some of these frontline workers leans towards this idea. Now, let me be clear – I am not suggesting it is OK to sit back and claim benefit indefinitely without looking for work. It is right there is an expectation that people should seek employment. However, in a culture where the jobs aren’t available it is difficult to accuse the thousands of claimants seeking work of being ‘scroungers’.
Moreover, many of the ‘back to work’ calculations done by these frontline workers often conclude the client would be ‘better off’ taking a part-time job – but these calculations often fail to take into account certain factors such as the hidden expenses of going to work. For example, this morning I will go to work and call into a shop and buy a coffee before arriving at my office. Had I been home I would have put on the kettle. At lunch I will wander through the town looking for a pair of shoes for work. Had I been home I would have worn trainers or slippers – I would not have needed a replacement pair of shoes. The other costs go on.
We need to radically review the way we treat people claiming unemployment benefits. It is not enough to cram them into the first available job just so it gets them off the claimant register. We must work towards helping these people secure permanent full-time sustainable employment.
Now, Iain Duncan Smith would tell us the Work Programme is targeted to achieve just this and with £5bn worth of contracts currently being divvied up between 18 contractors, there is clearly a lot of profit in agreeing with the minister. But with at least 5 people still applying for every job we are a long way off achieving the goal of full employment.
The hard reality is that Work Programme, like Flexible New Deal before it will not work because it is being run ‘for profit’ and whilst this demon is present, providers will always seek quick easy solutions to secure payment.
It is time to accept the inevitable – welfare to work … doesn’t work.
at
22:26
0
comments
Labels:
FND,
Jobseekers allowance,
unemployment,
welfare to work,
Work Programme
0
comments
Labels:
FND,
Jobseekers allowance,
unemployment,
welfare to work,
Work Programme
Friday, 1 April 2011
The Work Programme has its work cut out
Liam Byrne MP, Labour's Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, commenting ahead of the Tory-led Government’s announcement of its preferred bidders for their Work Programme, said:
“Unemployment has now hit a 17 year high and the benefits bill is soaring by over £12 billion.
“This government’s failure to get people back to work is now costing families a fortune because its forcing cuts in tax credits and children’s benefits.
“After a budget that put 200,000 more on the dole, this Work Programme has its work cut out.
“Most people will be really worried that this thinned down programme is simply not enough to get Britain back to work.”
Now THAT is an understatement!
Already firms in the welfare to work sector are setting up to shed jobs. Redundancy notices have been distributed in some organisations (A4e have given all their staff notice) and more will follow. By 1st June the sector will have lost hundreds of quality staff so Grayling can sit smugly in Whitehall, chuntering over the finer points of Tory ideology with Iain Duncan Smith.
It is a disgrace and the shame of these job losses will be laid fully on the shoulders of these hateful people. How can they legitimately say they want to get people back to work, when they take away the jobs of those who work in that sector?
Byrne should have been far more vocal defending jobs. If we can't depend on the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to support staff in the sector, then who can we trust?
He must make a statement - and soon - defending jobs and supporting small firms in the sector who will suffer whilst the fat cats and big companies cream off the riches on this new contract.
“Unemployment has now hit a 17 year high and the benefits bill is soaring by over £12 billion.
“This government’s failure to get people back to work is now costing families a fortune because its forcing cuts in tax credits and children’s benefits.
“After a budget that put 200,000 more on the dole, this Work Programme has its work cut out.
“Most people will be really worried that this thinned down programme is simply not enough to get Britain back to work.”
Now THAT is an understatement!
Already firms in the welfare to work sector are setting up to shed jobs. Redundancy notices have been distributed in some organisations (A4e have given all their staff notice) and more will follow. By 1st June the sector will have lost hundreds of quality staff so Grayling can sit smugly in Whitehall, chuntering over the finer points of Tory ideology with Iain Duncan Smith.
It is a disgrace and the shame of these job losses will be laid fully on the shoulders of these hateful people. How can they legitimately say they want to get people back to work, when they take away the jobs of those who work in that sector?
Byrne should have been far more vocal defending jobs. If we can't depend on the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to support staff in the sector, then who can we trust?
He must make a statement - and soon - defending jobs and supporting small firms in the sector who will suffer whilst the fat cats and big companies cream off the riches on this new contract.
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Disabled people thrown out of work by Remploy
Historically welfare to work policies have concentrated on job placement, however, recent UK government policy, as seen in the recent round of bidding for the Work Programme, has seen a shifting of focus towards sustainable job outcomes where sustainability may only be recognised two years after being placed in work.
In order to be seen as a leading player in this new policy, Remploy have commissioned Inclusion to produce an independent research report into career advancement to be published on Monday 7th March. They will be hosting a series of roundtable discussions later in March, to share the findings of this research more widely and discuss how career advancement can aid sustainability in today’s welfare to work arena.
I am sure news that Remploy are working hard to stay ahead in the field will bring much comfort to the 1,500 employees, most of whom are disabled workers who were earlier this month given notice of pending redundancy. Remploy is a government-funded body that has its own businesses providing jobs for 3,000 disabled people, including 227 in Greater Manchester, as well as an employment agency that find them posts with private employers.
Bosses at the firm say the business has suffered because of the difficult economic climate, with many factories operating at less than 50 per cent capacity. If this be the case, it begs the question of why are they spending money they clearly don’t have to commission research – particularly as Remploy is not fulfilling its mission to provide sustainable employment opportunities for disabled people.
A spokesperson was reported as saying:
“This scheme is voluntary and every employee will be able to choose if they want to apply for the severance package.
Oh, that’s OK then – in that case everyone can stay. Or maybe not.
“We will ensure that any employee who decides to leave and wants to continue working, will have guaranteed support from our employment services to find another job.”
Well that will make all those newly unemployed people a whole lot better won’t it. And does anyone else see a possible irony here? They make people redundant and then they find disabled people work – probably through one of their government-funded schemes. So, in effect, they are creating their own customers. How callous is that?
Bishop Auckland MP Helen Goodman, who chaired a cross-party back bench inquiry into planned closures at Remploy in 2009, said: “The overwhelming priority is that there should be work opportunities for people with disabilities, and the Government, in taking its decision, must not salami slice and undermine Remploy because it is so important.”
Unite. the union in defending the workers being made redundant, blamed "poor management" for the announcement and leader, Len McCluskey said: "What these employees face is a nightmare scenario of struggling to find new jobs in the toughest jobs market since the early 1990s, when we all know that disabled people are always at the back of the jobs queue.
“Ultimately, there is the prospect that some of these factories could close.
“We will be campaigning against this voluntary redundancy programme during the 90-day consultation period.”
A Department of Work and Pensions spokesman said: "Remploy has had £555m government funding but unfortunately the factory arm of their business has not been able to successfully compete.”
Meanwhile, GMB members who now face redundancy have been given authority by the union central executive council for industrial action ballot over redundancies. The Committee have been advised that GMB members in Remploy have already voted in a consultative ballot by a majority of 5 to 1 to take strike action.
Let me be quite clear - The Big Society, if its exists, must mean finding work for disabled workers and a strike to stop the deliberate run down of Remploy shows disabled workers are fed up of being lectured on the big society by those in high society
Unfortunately, it is expected that preparing for the ballot will take at least six weeks and will be conducted by the Electoral Reform Services (ERS). This may be too late for many of the affected staff at the firm. Remploy last month told GMB that proposals for voluntary redundancy were being rolled out across the company from Monday 31st January 2011. This was just 7 days after the legal consultation period of 90 days commenced on the 24th January 2011.
What is known about previous redundancies made by Remploy in 2008 is that the vast majority of workers (85%) are still unemployed and on benefits with no prospects of finding work. The GMB CEC were also told that Remploy management has made little, or no progress, in finding work for the remaining Remploy factories in spite of the fact that EU rules allow public bodies to place orders with sheltered workshop outside of normal procurement arrangements.
The unions affected have placed an alternate plan before government to save jobs at the factories. Part of the plan is to reverse the rise in the number of managers which has increased despite reductions in the number of factories and shop floor workers. In total the Remploy unions have put forward a plan to cut £30million from costs while making Remploy viable.
Meanwhile, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith personally asked Remploy to show restraint in the distribution of a bonus windfall to its top-tier management. However, directors went ahead with 288 bonuses and then embarked on their redundancy programme.
The payouts, which are subsidised by the taxpayer, saw directors handed bonuses of up to £15,000 each and include benefits that amount to more than the annual salaries earned by some of the workers. Certainly more than the average worker now facing a future of joblessness.
There is nothing new in these outrageous bonuses - the company paid its management team £1.5m in bonuses and benefits last year. Its accounts show that chief executive Tim Matthews, 59, who once listed drinking champagne among his interests in Who's Who, took home a record total package of £180,000. He also claimed thousands of pounds more in expenses for hotel stays and meals.
Remploy finance director Nigel Hopkins received a £140,000 package, including a £15,000 bonus. Further figures show that in the past three years consultants working with Remploy on the redundancy and other 'modernisation programmes' have been paid more than £6m.
A further example of the “them” and “us” culture under the Tories, but here we have a firm, supposedly dedicated to supporting some of the most vulnerable people in society, ruthlessly taking away their livelihoods whilst feeding the riches bosses of another welfare to work company.
And it’s all being done with our money!!!
In order to be seen as a leading player in this new policy, Remploy have commissioned Inclusion to produce an independent research report into career advancement to be published on Monday 7th March. They will be hosting a series of roundtable discussions later in March, to share the findings of this research more widely and discuss how career advancement can aid sustainability in today’s welfare to work arena.
I am sure news that Remploy are working hard to stay ahead in the field will bring much comfort to the 1,500 employees, most of whom are disabled workers who were earlier this month given notice of pending redundancy. Remploy is a government-funded body that has its own businesses providing jobs for 3,000 disabled people, including 227 in Greater Manchester, as well as an employment agency that find them posts with private employers.
Bosses at the firm say the business has suffered because of the difficult economic climate, with many factories operating at less than 50 per cent capacity. If this be the case, it begs the question of why are they spending money they clearly don’t have to commission research – particularly as Remploy is not fulfilling its mission to provide sustainable employment opportunities for disabled people.
A spokesperson was reported as saying:
“This scheme is voluntary and every employee will be able to choose if they want to apply for the severance package.
Oh, that’s OK then – in that case everyone can stay. Or maybe not.
“We will ensure that any employee who decides to leave and wants to continue working, will have guaranteed support from our employment services to find another job.”
Well that will make all those newly unemployed people a whole lot better won’t it. And does anyone else see a possible irony here? They make people redundant and then they find disabled people work – probably through one of their government-funded schemes. So, in effect, they are creating their own customers. How callous is that?
Bishop Auckland MP Helen Goodman, who chaired a cross-party back bench inquiry into planned closures at Remploy in 2009, said: “The overwhelming priority is that there should be work opportunities for people with disabilities, and the Government, in taking its decision, must not salami slice and undermine Remploy because it is so important.”
Unite. the union in defending the workers being made redundant, blamed "poor management" for the announcement and leader, Len McCluskey said: "What these employees face is a nightmare scenario of struggling to find new jobs in the toughest jobs market since the early 1990s, when we all know that disabled people are always at the back of the jobs queue.
“Ultimately, there is the prospect that some of these factories could close.
“We will be campaigning against this voluntary redundancy programme during the 90-day consultation period.”
A Department of Work and Pensions spokesman said: "Remploy has had £555m government funding but unfortunately the factory arm of their business has not been able to successfully compete.”
Meanwhile, GMB members who now face redundancy have been given authority by the union central executive council for industrial action ballot over redundancies. The Committee have been advised that GMB members in Remploy have already voted in a consultative ballot by a majority of 5 to 1 to take strike action.
Let me be quite clear - The Big Society, if its exists, must mean finding work for disabled workers and a strike to stop the deliberate run down of Remploy shows disabled workers are fed up of being lectured on the big society by those in high society
Unfortunately, it is expected that preparing for the ballot will take at least six weeks and will be conducted by the Electoral Reform Services (ERS). This may be too late for many of the affected staff at the firm. Remploy last month told GMB that proposals for voluntary redundancy were being rolled out across the company from Monday 31st January 2011. This was just 7 days after the legal consultation period of 90 days commenced on the 24th January 2011.
What is known about previous redundancies made by Remploy in 2008 is that the vast majority of workers (85%) are still unemployed and on benefits with no prospects of finding work. The GMB CEC were also told that Remploy management has made little, or no progress, in finding work for the remaining Remploy factories in spite of the fact that EU rules allow public bodies to place orders with sheltered workshop outside of normal procurement arrangements.
The unions affected have placed an alternate plan before government to save jobs at the factories. Part of the plan is to reverse the rise in the number of managers which has increased despite reductions in the number of factories and shop floor workers. In total the Remploy unions have put forward a plan to cut £30million from costs while making Remploy viable.
Meanwhile, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith personally asked Remploy to show restraint in the distribution of a bonus windfall to its top-tier management. However, directors went ahead with 288 bonuses and then embarked on their redundancy programme.
The payouts, which are subsidised by the taxpayer, saw directors handed bonuses of up to £15,000 each and include benefits that amount to more than the annual salaries earned by some of the workers. Certainly more than the average worker now facing a future of joblessness.
There is nothing new in these outrageous bonuses - the company paid its management team £1.5m in bonuses and benefits last year. Its accounts show that chief executive Tim Matthews, 59, who once listed drinking champagne among his interests in Who's Who, took home a record total package of £180,000. He also claimed thousands of pounds more in expenses for hotel stays and meals.
Remploy finance director Nigel Hopkins received a £140,000 package, including a £15,000 bonus. Further figures show that in the past three years consultants working with Remploy on the redundancy and other 'modernisation programmes' have been paid more than £6m.
A further example of the “them” and “us” culture under the Tories, but here we have a firm, supposedly dedicated to supporting some of the most vulnerable people in society, ruthlessly taking away their livelihoods whilst feeding the riches bosses of another welfare to work company.
And it’s all being done with our money!!!
Friday, 4 February 2011
Unemployment and the Great British Fob Off!
News that 97 per cent of posts created since the economy came out of recession are of limited hours will come as no shock the welfare to work sector. The statistics mean only 6,000 of the 200,000 jobs to have come up in a year pay a full-time wage.
Of further concern to providers is the fact that evidence showed the top performing provider only achieved 8% sustained job outcomes. The average caseworker will be already aware of this, but it seems the Department of Work and Pensions have chosen to ignore current labour market trends.
There is an increasingly trend emerging amongst employers to offer part-time, or ‘zero-hour’ contracts because there is often no National Insurance to pay on behalf of the employees as usually their earnings are comparatively low.
In addition, firms often do not have to pay overtime or pension contributions, unless the part-timer has worked more hours than a full time colleague. Unscrupulous employers have historically used zero-hours contracts as a means by which employees are only paid for work actually done. For example, a restaurant might employ three staff and not know how busy a particular night was going to be. The employer would therefore have staff 'on call' and unpaid, until it became busy enough to bring them out to serve.
One of the reasons employers have opted for these contracts is because they are worried about low growth levels, increasing inflation and the reluctance of banks to finance projects. This point was emphasized by David Frost, the Director-General of the British Chamber of Commerce, who said:
“Clearly there's a lot of nervousness about the future and companies are hiring people on a short-term basis in case the economy doesn't grow as expected. When there's more confidence companies will convert part-time people into full-time employees.”
This kind of uncertainty will not disappear overnight and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) warned it will take at least two more years before the economy claws back output lost to the crisis of 2008. In the meantime, unemployment will soar this year to a 17-year high of 2.8m - 8.8% of the workforce.
Now, let me draw an analogy. Let us assume you had a car parked outside that you needed for work. Let us also assume that every time you needed the car, it only started and ran 3 times in every 100 – would you continue to run the car? Presumably not. Yet the government adhere to a belief that the Welfare to Work sector offers the unemployed some kind of future salvation.
Clearly this is not the case and evidence shows large numbers are being referred to independent providers (who are paid handsomely for their services), only to be fobbed off with low-grade part-time work. This is hardly a solution and one can only stand in total confusion at Iain Duncan Smith’s professed allegiance to the process. Is it that he sees our future as all being employed part-time? Perhaps he doesn’t care about the unemployed and only wants to massage the statistics? Possibly it is because he sees the vast profits the Welfare to Work sector makes and thinks he can fool us whilst making companies like Serco, A4e, Working Links and others pay low rates of corporation tax.
The system is ineffective, fails to address fundamental problems within our labour market and offers no solutions to the unemployed. Rather than encouraging large corporations to bid for the new Work Programme, the government should be reviewing the entire process of how we fail those who are workless.
Morally, it is what should be done – I won’t hold my breath!
Of further concern to providers is the fact that evidence showed the top performing provider only achieved 8% sustained job outcomes. The average caseworker will be already aware of this, but it seems the Department of Work and Pensions have chosen to ignore current labour market trends.
There is an increasingly trend emerging amongst employers to offer part-time, or ‘zero-hour’ contracts because there is often no National Insurance to pay on behalf of the employees as usually their earnings are comparatively low.
In addition, firms often do not have to pay overtime or pension contributions, unless the part-timer has worked more hours than a full time colleague. Unscrupulous employers have historically used zero-hours contracts as a means by which employees are only paid for work actually done. For example, a restaurant might employ three staff and not know how busy a particular night was going to be. The employer would therefore have staff 'on call' and unpaid, until it became busy enough to bring them out to serve.
One of the reasons employers have opted for these contracts is because they are worried about low growth levels, increasing inflation and the reluctance of banks to finance projects. This point was emphasized by David Frost, the Director-General of the British Chamber of Commerce, who said:
“Clearly there's a lot of nervousness about the future and companies are hiring people on a short-term basis in case the economy doesn't grow as expected. When there's more confidence companies will convert part-time people into full-time employees.”
This kind of uncertainty will not disappear overnight and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) warned it will take at least two more years before the economy claws back output lost to the crisis of 2008. In the meantime, unemployment will soar this year to a 17-year high of 2.8m - 8.8% of the workforce.
Now, let me draw an analogy. Let us assume you had a car parked outside that you needed for work. Let us also assume that every time you needed the car, it only started and ran 3 times in every 100 – would you continue to run the car? Presumably not. Yet the government adhere to a belief that the Welfare to Work sector offers the unemployed some kind of future salvation.
Clearly this is not the case and evidence shows large numbers are being referred to independent providers (who are paid handsomely for their services), only to be fobbed off with low-grade part-time work. This is hardly a solution and one can only stand in total confusion at Iain Duncan Smith’s professed allegiance to the process. Is it that he sees our future as all being employed part-time? Perhaps he doesn’t care about the unemployed and only wants to massage the statistics? Possibly it is because he sees the vast profits the Welfare to Work sector makes and thinks he can fool us whilst making companies like Serco, A4e, Working Links and others pay low rates of corporation tax.
The system is ineffective, fails to address fundamental problems within our labour market and offers no solutions to the unemployed. Rather than encouraging large corporations to bid for the new Work Programme, the government should be reviewing the entire process of how we fail those who are workless.
Morally, it is what should be done – I won’t hold my breath!
Friday, 14 January 2011
Jobs? What jobs?
On Monday, David Cameron met with a number or retail organisations and the summit was quickly followed by the announcement that many of these firms would create 32,000 new jobs in the UK. Sainsbury’s alone would account for 20,00o of these jobs as the company fights to restore its position in the High Street.
All of this falls at a time when the British Retail Consortium announce that High Street sales fell by 0.3% on a like for like basis in December, whilst total sales rose by 1.5% - the slowest pace since April 2010.
At the same time, economic growth slowed sharply in the fourth quarter of 2010 according to the British Chamber of Commerce. The BCC forecast that figures would show the economy would grow by just 0.4% or 0.5% between October and December, down from 0.7% in the third quarter of 2010.
As if this wasn’t enough bad news for the government, the current CPI is 3.3% (a full percentage point above the Coalition 2% target), whilst the RPI stands at 4.7%. Leading business groups have warned that the recent hike in VAT from 17.5% to 20% will drive inflation up to around the 4% (CPI) mark over the coming months.
David Cameron has admitted the figures are disturbing. Last Sunday he was quoted as saying: "If you look at the recent [inflation] figures, they are concerning because they are well outside what the Bank of England is meant to deliver. Inflation is extremely harmful; it destroys people's savings we don't want to go back to having an inflation problem as we had in the past."
The retail industry is in decline. In December, ONS advised food store sales decreased by 1.3 per cent – this is the fifth consecutive fall, while predominantly non-food stores increased by 3.6 per cent. Meanwhile internet sales continue to increase as consumers move away from High Street shopping to online purchasing. Internet retail sales now account for approximately 10.5 per cent of all retail sales. This is the highest proportion since the series began. In comparison, in November 2009 this proportion was 7.9 per cent. On average, weekly internet retail sales in November 2010 totalled £660 million compared with the average weekly value for all retailing at £6,300 million (excluding automotive fuel).
Given this, one has to wonder at the wisdom of relying so heavily on a future blossoming retail industry, particularly as only 53% of staff employed in distributive trades is male. Meanwhile, almost 70% of the claimant count is male.
The Engineering Employers' Federation forecast that manufacturing in the UK will outperform other sectors and predicts manufacturing to grow by 3.5% this year. With this in mind, it is likely that manufacturing and not retail will offer future employment for many unemployed. Over the coming months, Proskills UK, the manufacturing sector skills councils are likely to turn to training providers for support. The question will be whether the training sector will prepared and able.
Existing evidence would lean towards an assumption that major providers such as A4e, Serco and working Links are nowhere near being able to support a re-emerging manufacturing industry. In large part these, and other independent welfare-to-work providers concentrate on offering low grade training courses in areas such as manual handling, first aid or fork lift truck driving. Gone are the days when providers could offer unemployed people the chance to reskill and train as welders, centre lathe turners, electrical work or foundry skills.
As Work Programme moves closer to becoming a reality, government and providers need to rethink what they are trying to achieve. New Deal and its infant, Flexible New Deal were far less successful than they were heralded and on top of that cost taxpayers heavily for little reward.
Now in the substance misuse world they have a phrase – ‘Insanity is repeating the same behaviour over and over expecting a different result”. Early indicators are that Work Programme will be little more than a repeat of New Deal, with the added tags of allowing providers less scrutiny and a different payment mechanism.
So what can we look forward to? Logically there is no evidence that Work Programme will be any more successful than any of its predecessors. But what is more concern is that the millions now facing unemployment or shortly due to lose their jobs will be denied real job opportunities by allowing them to reskill to join a potentially growing manufacturing industry.
New Labour denied millions of long-term unemployed the chance to retrain so they might secure sustainable employment. Now this Conservative-led government is repeating old mistakes. It’s time Ed Miliband made a clean break and questioned our entire welfare to work approach. Rather than being a mechanism to support those who are jobless, it is a tool for international corporations to make millions out of people’s misery. It needs to be changed.
All of this falls at a time when the British Retail Consortium announce that High Street sales fell by 0.3% on a like for like basis in December, whilst total sales rose by 1.5% - the slowest pace since April 2010.
At the same time, economic growth slowed sharply in the fourth quarter of 2010 according to the British Chamber of Commerce. The BCC forecast that figures would show the economy would grow by just 0.4% or 0.5% between October and December, down from 0.7% in the third quarter of 2010.
As if this wasn’t enough bad news for the government, the current CPI is 3.3% (a full percentage point above the Coalition 2% target), whilst the RPI stands at 4.7%. Leading business groups have warned that the recent hike in VAT from 17.5% to 20% will drive inflation up to around the 4% (CPI) mark over the coming months.
David Cameron has admitted the figures are disturbing. Last Sunday he was quoted as saying: "If you look at the recent [inflation] figures, they are concerning because they are well outside what the Bank of England is meant to deliver. Inflation is extremely harmful; it destroys people's savings we don't want to go back to having an inflation problem as we had in the past."
The retail industry is in decline. In December, ONS advised food store sales decreased by 1.3 per cent – this is the fifth consecutive fall, while predominantly non-food stores increased by 3.6 per cent. Meanwhile internet sales continue to increase as consumers move away from High Street shopping to online purchasing. Internet retail sales now account for approximately 10.5 per cent of all retail sales. This is the highest proportion since the series began. In comparison, in November 2009 this proportion was 7.9 per cent. On average, weekly internet retail sales in November 2010 totalled £660 million compared with the average weekly value for all retailing at £6,300 million (excluding automotive fuel).
Given this, one has to wonder at the wisdom of relying so heavily on a future blossoming retail industry, particularly as only 53% of staff employed in distributive trades is male. Meanwhile, almost 70% of the claimant count is male.
The Engineering Employers' Federation forecast that manufacturing in the UK will outperform other sectors and predicts manufacturing to grow by 3.5% this year. With this in mind, it is likely that manufacturing and not retail will offer future employment for many unemployed. Over the coming months, Proskills UK, the manufacturing sector skills councils are likely to turn to training providers for support. The question will be whether the training sector will prepared and able.
Existing evidence would lean towards an assumption that major providers such as A4e, Serco and working Links are nowhere near being able to support a re-emerging manufacturing industry. In large part these, and other independent welfare-to-work providers concentrate on offering low grade training courses in areas such as manual handling, first aid or fork lift truck driving. Gone are the days when providers could offer unemployed people the chance to reskill and train as welders, centre lathe turners, electrical work or foundry skills.
As Work Programme moves closer to becoming a reality, government and providers need to rethink what they are trying to achieve. New Deal and its infant, Flexible New Deal were far less successful than they were heralded and on top of that cost taxpayers heavily for little reward.
Now in the substance misuse world they have a phrase – ‘Insanity is repeating the same behaviour over and over expecting a different result”. Early indicators are that Work Programme will be little more than a repeat of New Deal, with the added tags of allowing providers less scrutiny and a different payment mechanism.
So what can we look forward to? Logically there is no evidence that Work Programme will be any more successful than any of its predecessors. But what is more concern is that the millions now facing unemployment or shortly due to lose their jobs will be denied real job opportunities by allowing them to reskill to join a potentially growing manufacturing industry.
New Labour denied millions of long-term unemployed the chance to retrain so they might secure sustainable employment. Now this Conservative-led government is repeating old mistakes. It’s time Ed Miliband made a clean break and questioned our entire welfare to work approach. Rather than being a mechanism to support those who are jobless, it is a tool for international corporations to make millions out of people’s misery. It needs to be changed.
Thursday, 24 June 2010
The need to build mass action
Of course any sensible thinking person is going to be opposed to the cuts proposed by ‘Snatcher’ Osborne and his Lib Dem cronies, although I confess it is good to see at least Simon Hughes is looking a bit guilty. However, the big question is what are we going to do about it?
Unison and PCS have already said they intend to fight for their members whenever jobs are under threat and the Labour party should offer wholehearted support to any campaign organised by the unions, including industrial action if it occurs.
Let us not forget, we ‘sold out’ when it came to the miners strike in the 1980s and left thousands of working men and their families politically isolated, although there were a number of notable and courageous exceptions (Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner etc). As a result, the Tories annihilated entire communities, forced thousands onto the dole queues, destroyed the mining industry and left hundreds of other workers without work because the company they worked for was forced to close because the local pits were no longer producing coal. We must not make the same mistake again.
This fight against the cuts is going to be tough. Cameron is not going to give in easily and those who think Tuesday was harsh need to prepare for something 5 times worse come the autumn. Some are already estimating he will try and lop off another £13bn off the welfare benefit bill and if he does, it will be pensioners who will be the first to suffer. Already there are indicators the Winter Fuel Allowance is under threat, but there will be worse behind it.
Already the long-term unemployed living in rented accommodation have been attacked and in the months to come many will find themselves in debt, or homeless. Similarly, if you are poor and pregnant you will no longer be looked after as you were under a Labour government.
We need to make a firm stand. Yesterday Alistair Darling broadcast his response to the budget – it was accurate, it was reasoned, it was fair - but it lacked passion. It could have been delivered by a chartered accountant, not a socialist.
If we are going to convince people to join this struggle we will need to have passion. It is not enough to leave the fight to the unions and for parliamentarians to take the higher ground. We need to be prepared to get our hands dirty. This involves organising a mass movement with local, regional and national activities taking place. We have to show ordinary men and women we have not forgotten them – that Labour does care, that we will stand and fight for their rights whenever they are under threat.
Remember the CND campaigns of the 1980s? Remember the Anti-Nazi League? Did they rely on deep-seated reasoned argument? Yes and no. Yes there was an intellectual base to their approach, but it relied on people standing under a common single banner – united and willing to fight for what was right. We have to build that new mass movement once again.
If we don’t, what is the point in calling ourselves socialists and organising under the banner of the Labour party?
Unison and PCS have already said they intend to fight for their members whenever jobs are under threat and the Labour party should offer wholehearted support to any campaign organised by the unions, including industrial action if it occurs.
Let us not forget, we ‘sold out’ when it came to the miners strike in the 1980s and left thousands of working men and their families politically isolated, although there were a number of notable and courageous exceptions (Tony Benn, Dennis Skinner etc). As a result, the Tories annihilated entire communities, forced thousands onto the dole queues, destroyed the mining industry and left hundreds of other workers without work because the company they worked for was forced to close because the local pits were no longer producing coal. We must not make the same mistake again.
This fight against the cuts is going to be tough. Cameron is not going to give in easily and those who think Tuesday was harsh need to prepare for something 5 times worse come the autumn. Some are already estimating he will try and lop off another £13bn off the welfare benefit bill and if he does, it will be pensioners who will be the first to suffer. Already there are indicators the Winter Fuel Allowance is under threat, but there will be worse behind it.
Already the long-term unemployed living in rented accommodation have been attacked and in the months to come many will find themselves in debt, or homeless. Similarly, if you are poor and pregnant you will no longer be looked after as you were under a Labour government.
We need to make a firm stand. Yesterday Alistair Darling broadcast his response to the budget – it was accurate, it was reasoned, it was fair - but it lacked passion. It could have been delivered by a chartered accountant, not a socialist.
If we are going to convince people to join this struggle we will need to have passion. It is not enough to leave the fight to the unions and for parliamentarians to take the higher ground. We need to be prepared to get our hands dirty. This involves organising a mass movement with local, regional and national activities taking place. We have to show ordinary men and women we have not forgotten them – that Labour does care, that we will stand and fight for their rights whenever they are under threat.
Remember the CND campaigns of the 1980s? Remember the Anti-Nazi League? Did they rely on deep-seated reasoned argument? Yes and no. Yes there was an intellectual base to their approach, but it relied on people standing under a common single banner – united and willing to fight for what was right. We have to build that new mass movement once again.
If we don’t, what is the point in calling ourselves socialists and organising under the banner of the Labour party?
Tuesday, 8 June 2010
How the Coalition ignores the unemployed
Already the coalition is starting to show signs of attacking our hard earned welfare system. Over the coming months, 2.6 million people currently in receipt of incapacity benefit will be reassessed and ‘judged’ as to whether they are fit for work. Now accessing IB in the first place is not exactly easy and requires the co-operation of a GP, so one can only assume the Con-Dems are unwilling to accept medical opinion because they want to get these ‘skivers’ back to work.
Add to this the 8.1 million people who are deemed economically inactive and you have the basis of a return to Thatcherite oppression of the working class, with the government threatening to implement a series of ‘initiatives’ to force people back into work.
You don’t believe me? Take a look at Tory policy. They state:
“... anyone declining to participate on the single Work Programme will lose the right to claim out-of-work benefits until they do”.
Their manifesto (and now Coalition policy) also indicated that refusal of a job offer could lead to “forfeit of benefits for up to 3 years”.
Clearly, this approach stems from an underlying belief that the unemployed are no more than a bunch of ‘skivers’ determined to milk the welfare system. This diatribe harks back to the days of Thatcherism – an era few amongst this readership would wish to see repeated. But who exactly are these ‘skivers’ the Tories are so determined to persecute? Are they the economically inactive? The unemployed?
If they are amongst the 8.1m people deemed economically inactive, then let us break down the figures:
- Slightly over 2.3 million are students
- A bit under 2.3 million are looking after their family /home (eg housewives).
- Just over 2 million are long-term sick.
- Just under 600,000 describe themselves as retired.
- Just over 1 million part-time workers who are on reduced hours and unable to find full-time work
It is also worthy of note(before the Tories trash the record of the last government - when Labour was elected the working age population was just under 35.3 million; in the latest figures it is just over 38 million – 2.75 million higher.
Alternatively, if the Tories are referring to the unemployed, then a simple glance at the figures shows there are currently 2.51m people unemployed, with 1.51 of these receiving Jobseekers Allowance. At the same time, the number of vacancies for the three months to April 2010 was 475,000. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out there are not enough jobs to go around.
So how will the Con-Dems get people back into work?
Will they revitalise British industry? No.
Will they generate a massive house rebuilding programme to address a chronic housing need and take 750,000 workers off unemployment benefit? No.
Will they protect our public services and guarantee the safety of jobs for those employed by local, regional and national government. No – latest indicators are there will be approximately 750,000 redundancies.
But the good news is the Con-Dems are going to implement a new shiny welfare to work programme. Of course, they don’t know how it will work – they have asked independent training providers to offer some suggestions; they don’t know when it will happen – but they want it to happen soon. They don’t know how it will be paid for – although they accept smaller third sector providers might struggle to deliver the programme. Oh .. and they have absolutely no idea on where these training providers will find jobs for the unemployed.
But we don’t have to worry, because Nick and David and now Ian (I didn’t want to be party leader anyway) Duncan-Smith and Chris (of course I’m not homophobic) Grayling have a plan. They aren’t telling us what it is ... and as days turn to weeks it is rapidly becoming apparent they are trying to work it all out on the hoof. Meanwhile, 2.51 million people remain unemployed, 600,000 of these young people – with no hope of a future whilst the Con-Dems implement savage cuts across all services.
Not the best way to develop a radical new welfare system.
Add to this the 8.1 million people who are deemed economically inactive and you have the basis of a return to Thatcherite oppression of the working class, with the government threatening to implement a series of ‘initiatives’ to force people back into work.
You don’t believe me? Take a look at Tory policy. They state:
“... anyone declining to participate on the single Work Programme will lose the right to claim out-of-work benefits until they do”.
Their manifesto (and now Coalition policy) also indicated that refusal of a job offer could lead to “forfeit of benefits for up to 3 years”.
Clearly, this approach stems from an underlying belief that the unemployed are no more than a bunch of ‘skivers’ determined to milk the welfare system. This diatribe harks back to the days of Thatcherism – an era few amongst this readership would wish to see repeated. But who exactly are these ‘skivers’ the Tories are so determined to persecute? Are they the economically inactive? The unemployed?
If they are amongst the 8.1m people deemed economically inactive, then let us break down the figures:
- Slightly over 2.3 million are students
- A bit under 2.3 million are looking after their family /home (eg housewives).
- Just over 2 million are long-term sick.
- Just under 600,000 describe themselves as retired.
- Just over 1 million part-time workers who are on reduced hours and unable to find full-time work
It is also worthy of note(before the Tories trash the record of the last government - when Labour was elected the working age population was just under 35.3 million; in the latest figures it is just over 38 million – 2.75 million higher.
Alternatively, if the Tories are referring to the unemployed, then a simple glance at the figures shows there are currently 2.51m people unemployed, with 1.51 of these receiving Jobseekers Allowance. At the same time, the number of vacancies for the three months to April 2010 was 475,000. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out there are not enough jobs to go around.
So how will the Con-Dems get people back into work?
Will they revitalise British industry? No.
Will they generate a massive house rebuilding programme to address a chronic housing need and take 750,000 workers off unemployment benefit? No.
Will they protect our public services and guarantee the safety of jobs for those employed by local, regional and national government. No – latest indicators are there will be approximately 750,000 redundancies.
But the good news is the Con-Dems are going to implement a new shiny welfare to work programme. Of course, they don’t know how it will work – they have asked independent training providers to offer some suggestions; they don’t know when it will happen – but they want it to happen soon. They don’t know how it will be paid for – although they accept smaller third sector providers might struggle to deliver the programme. Oh .. and they have absolutely no idea on where these training providers will find jobs for the unemployed.
But we don’t have to worry, because Nick and David and now Ian (I didn’t want to be party leader anyway) Duncan-Smith and Chris (of course I’m not homophobic) Grayling have a plan. They aren’t telling us what it is ... and as days turn to weeks it is rapidly becoming apparent they are trying to work it all out on the hoof. Meanwhile, 2.51 million people remain unemployed, 600,000 of these young people – with no hope of a future whilst the Con-Dems implement savage cuts across all services.
Not the best way to develop a radical new welfare system.
at
03:29
0
comments
Labels:
IB,
Incapacity benefit,
Labour,
Thatcherite,
Tory,
unemployment,
welfare to work,
Work Programme
0
comments
Labels:
IB,
Incapacity benefit,
Labour,
Thatcherite,
Tory,
unemployment,
welfare to work,
Work Programme
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
A future for the unemployed
Last week George Osborne cut £535m from the Department of Work and Pensions budget at a time when currently 2.51m (542,000 of these are classified as having been long-term unemployed) people are registered as unemployed and a further 8.16m people identified as inactive. Furthermore, Ian Duncan Smith has indicated that 2.6m people currently in receipt of Incapacity Benefit will be reassessed and those available for work will be transferred onto Jobseeker’s Allowance. He estimates that approximately 50% of these people will be added to the overall unemployment figures. Thus with 3 weeks of being in government the Con-Dems have managed to ensure we will have 12m people out of work, with possibly a further half a million to follow as the cuts start to take effect on public services.
Additionally, it is now known that 7.67m people are currently employed on a part-time basis, many of whom opt for this type of work because they are unable to secure full-time employment. The government, for its part, welcomes people taking this approach as it helps keep unemployment below 8% (Source: Office of Labour Market Statistics).
The Con-Dem approach to tackling unemployment remains vague and tomorrow, Chris Grayling, the Minister of State at DWP will meet with private training providers such as Serco (infamous for their running of Yarls Wood immigration detention centre) and A4e to outline how any new programme might work. We already know it is their intention to scrap all existing welfare to work programmes, such as Flexible New Deal, Future Jobs Fund, Pathways to Work and Flexible Routeways. We also know these will be replaced by the Tory flagship provision – Work Programme.
The only clear issue is that the funding arrangements for the new provision will differ substantially from all previously run contracts. According to plans already outlined, training providers will only be paid when someone has been in a sustainable job for 12 months. The existing mechanism allows for a training provider to claim a small service fee in order to cover costs and the balance paid once a person has been in employment for 3 or 6 months (depending on the contract). This will change under new measures and will be replaced by a mechanism where providers will generally only receive a payment when the ‘client’ has been in employment for a year – an approach that will clearly mean smaller providers and third sector organisations will be unable to bid for these lucrative contracts. The effect of this will be that local organisations who have an intimate knowledge of their area and the needs of the communities they serve will be substantially ‘disenfranchised’ because of Tory commitment to centralising services and their fascination with ‘big is beautiful’.
The government rationale for the Work Programme is that it will be cost effective to contract independent training providers to deliver this provision. However, the government seem to have failed to recognise a key flaw in their strategy. The total number of job vacancies for the period February – April, 2010 was 475,000, whilst the number of jobless people potentially seeking work for the same period was approximately 11m. Whichever way you look at it, the figures don’t add up. Understandably the Tories and their lap dogs, the Liberal Democrats, have been hesitant to suggest how training providers will be expected to create jobs.
In order to tackle unemployment in this country it is critical a number of key issues are addressed:
• First we need to create a substantial house building strategy to tackle the critical need for homes in the UK and address the high level of unemployment amongst those working in the ‘trowel trades’. This would include the creation of 1m new homes each year for 5 years and would be under the auspices of local authorities through social housing trusts and would offer employment to approximately 750,000 people.
• Introduce a series of programmes to tackle the high level of unemployment amongst young people – including restoring the Future Jobs Fund and introducing a significant apprenticeship programme in order to offer 250,000 new apprenticeships – automatically cutting youth unemployment by a third.
• Nationalisation the banking and finance industry in order that profits from these companies can be used to rebuild our industrial base. Further savings could be achieved by scrapping the Trident programme and reinvesting the money saved into local business initiatives.
• Renationalisation of the rail and postal system to protect existing jobs and rebuild our transport infrastructure. This would include a massive investment in improving our rail network
• Through the creation of worker-owned co-operatives and other common ownership programmes, establish a coherent industrial policy to support the establishment of a competitive and technologically advanced engineering industry in the UK. We were once one of the foremost industrial nations and this was allowed to slip into decline under Thatcher, Major and later by Blair.
• Develop ecologically friendly energy sources – wind farms, wave, solar etc. These new technologies would help establish many new jobs and add to the wealth of local communities.
This approach, whilst openly and unapologetically socialist in its emphasis, would tackle head on the issue of rising unemployment. Of course, critics would argue we can’t afford it right now because our national debt is so high, but in 1945 our debt was 216% of GDP compared to 51% today and a post-war Labour government initiated polices that by 1951 had created full employment.
If we could do it then – we can do it again!
Additionally, it is now known that 7.67m people are currently employed on a part-time basis, many of whom opt for this type of work because they are unable to secure full-time employment. The government, for its part, welcomes people taking this approach as it helps keep unemployment below 8% (Source: Office of Labour Market Statistics).
The Con-Dem approach to tackling unemployment remains vague and tomorrow, Chris Grayling, the Minister of State at DWP will meet with private training providers such as Serco (infamous for their running of Yarls Wood immigration detention centre) and A4e to outline how any new programme might work. We already know it is their intention to scrap all existing welfare to work programmes, such as Flexible New Deal, Future Jobs Fund, Pathways to Work and Flexible Routeways. We also know these will be replaced by the Tory flagship provision – Work Programme.
The only clear issue is that the funding arrangements for the new provision will differ substantially from all previously run contracts. According to plans already outlined, training providers will only be paid when someone has been in a sustainable job for 12 months. The existing mechanism allows for a training provider to claim a small service fee in order to cover costs and the balance paid once a person has been in employment for 3 or 6 months (depending on the contract). This will change under new measures and will be replaced by a mechanism where providers will generally only receive a payment when the ‘client’ has been in employment for a year – an approach that will clearly mean smaller providers and third sector organisations will be unable to bid for these lucrative contracts. The effect of this will be that local organisations who have an intimate knowledge of their area and the needs of the communities they serve will be substantially ‘disenfranchised’ because of Tory commitment to centralising services and their fascination with ‘big is beautiful’.
The government rationale for the Work Programme is that it will be cost effective to contract independent training providers to deliver this provision. However, the government seem to have failed to recognise a key flaw in their strategy. The total number of job vacancies for the period February – April, 2010 was 475,000, whilst the number of jobless people potentially seeking work for the same period was approximately 11m. Whichever way you look at it, the figures don’t add up. Understandably the Tories and their lap dogs, the Liberal Democrats, have been hesitant to suggest how training providers will be expected to create jobs.
In order to tackle unemployment in this country it is critical a number of key issues are addressed:
• First we need to create a substantial house building strategy to tackle the critical need for homes in the UK and address the high level of unemployment amongst those working in the ‘trowel trades’. This would include the creation of 1m new homes each year for 5 years and would be under the auspices of local authorities through social housing trusts and would offer employment to approximately 750,000 people.
• Introduce a series of programmes to tackle the high level of unemployment amongst young people – including restoring the Future Jobs Fund and introducing a significant apprenticeship programme in order to offer 250,000 new apprenticeships – automatically cutting youth unemployment by a third.
• Nationalisation the banking and finance industry in order that profits from these companies can be used to rebuild our industrial base. Further savings could be achieved by scrapping the Trident programme and reinvesting the money saved into local business initiatives.
• Renationalisation of the rail and postal system to protect existing jobs and rebuild our transport infrastructure. This would include a massive investment in improving our rail network
• Through the creation of worker-owned co-operatives and other common ownership programmes, establish a coherent industrial policy to support the establishment of a competitive and technologically advanced engineering industry in the UK. We were once one of the foremost industrial nations and this was allowed to slip into decline under Thatcher, Major and later by Blair.
• Develop ecologically friendly energy sources – wind farms, wave, solar etc. These new technologies would help establish many new jobs and add to the wealth of local communities.
This approach, whilst openly and unapologetically socialist in its emphasis, would tackle head on the issue of rising unemployment. Of course, critics would argue we can’t afford it right now because our national debt is so high, but in 1945 our debt was 216% of GDP compared to 51% today and a post-war Labour government initiated polices that by 1951 had created full employment.
If we could do it then – we can do it again!
at
04:08
0
comments
Labels:
A4e,
common ownership,
Labour,
nationalisation,
Serco,
socialism,
unemployed,
unemployment,
welfare to work
0
comments
Labels:
A4e,
common ownership,
Labour,
nationalisation,
Serco,
socialism,
unemployed,
unemployment,
welfare to work
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
