[Alf]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/693726...Statement:News

[Oliver_W]

Just gonna quote it for when the intellectuals arrive with their "nerrr I'm not clicking on a link from The S*n"

REAPING THE BENEFIT Thousands of jobseekers to be refunded £2m in benefits after judges ruled sanctions breached their human rights.

The revelation comes after a five-year legal fight against the Department for Work and Pensions over the controversial “workfare” schemes.

Established in 2011, a court found that they had not described its back-to-work schemes in enough detail when establishing them.

After graduate Cait Reilly won a Court of Appeal victory over her unpaid work placement in Poundland, the Tory-led coalition passed an emergency to make the schemes legal.

This prevented them from having to refund around £130million to those who'd had their benefits sanctioned, according to a report in the Mirror.

But a court found this rule change meant a group of jobseekers had lost their right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

And now details released under the Freedom of Information Act show between 3,789 and 4,305 people are expected to be paid back £1.7millio to £1.9million in lost benefits.

The DWP is only offering the money back to those who fit a narrow set of guidelines, and campaigners say the payments do not go far enough.

Blogger Frank Zola, who obtained the figures, told the newspaper all those who'd been sanctioned under the original schemes should be refunded the full £130million.

But the DWP insisted there was "no reason to refund all claimants" sanctioned between 2011 and 2013.

In its FOI response, the department said sanctions "are an important part of a fair and effective welfare system".

And in a statement the DWP added: "It would be unfair and unacceptable that claimants who have failed to take all reasonable steps to increase their chances of finding work obtained advantage over claimants who complied with the benefit conditionality requirements."

It also said: "The Department offers a large range of tailored support for claimants, and does not recognise that the term ‘workfare’ applies to this support."

My take? Workfare is a pile of bollocks, or at least in the way it's handled now. I will admit all I know from it is my friend's experience, which is: he works in IT, and the company he worked for closed down. He's the stereotypical IT nerd, and doesn't do well in social situations, but the Job Centre saw fit to put him in B&m for 30 hours a week, for JSA ...

IF that's common, I can't agree with it. a) they should either raise his JSA, or give him the amount of hours which matches the amount of JSA he receives b) he'll never work in retail, and if he did get such a job he'd never last, so the "experience" was valueless to him.

[Tom4784]

Good. The system abuses jobseekers terribly and work coaches are encouraged to look for reasons to sanction them. It doesn't surprise me one bit that aspects of it have been ruled a breach of their human rights.

A lot of jobseekers are vulnerable people, depression and similar mental ailments are common and the system makes it worse for them by demonising them. The whole system needs to be overhauled so that it's actually focused on getting people into employment that suits them and the medical side of it needs a complete reboot.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Good. The system abuses jobseekers terribly and work coaches are encouraged to look for reasons to sanction them. It doesn't surprise me one bit that aspects of it have been ruled a breach of their human rights.

A lot of jobseekers are vulnerable people, depression and similar mental ailments are common and the system makes it worse for them by demonising them. The whole system needs to be overhauled so that it's actually focused on getting people into employment that suits them and the medical side of it needs a complete reboot.

coaches are encouraged to look for reasons to sanction them. It



We will of course need proof of that outlandish comment.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by parmnion

coaches are encouraged to look for reasons to sanction them. It



We will of course need proof of that outlandish comment.

Here's the proof

It was widely reported that coaches have targets to aim for when it comes to sanctions.

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Here's the proof

It was widely reported that coaches have targets to aim for when it comes to sanctions.

Oh thee old search the internet yourself deflection tactic....i just did, cant see a thing...can you back up the accusation?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Oh thee old search the internet yourself deflection tactic....i just did, cant see a thing...can you back up the accusation?

Thw whole 'I have nothing to say so i'm gonna ask you to do my research for me' is nothing but a deflection in itself. Choosing not to search for it because you don't want to see i'm right is not the same as not being able to find anything on the subject.



61,000 results. Be honest, you didn't bother looking.

[Vicky.]

Sanctions are absolute bull****. I can agree that people who consistently take the piss are..taking the piss, however of 3 friends I know who are (were, in 2 cases, only one is still on) on JSA one was sanctioned for taking her daughter to A+E and missing an appointment because of it. 1 was sanctioned for not receiving a letter about a change in appointment that brought the meeting forward a week, he got the letter the day after the rearranged date ffs...and the other got a sanction for having a house fire over the xmas period, which left him unable to jobsearch effectively for a few reasons, but you would think that after having your house pretty much burn down, you would be cut a little bit of slack, tbh.

So yeah, bullcrap. And yes, targets are horrendous if sanctions are only meant to be given to those who actually deserve them. How can you have a target like this? Quite similar to the targets for getting people off ESA and such.

[Vicky.]

And workfare is ****ing disgusting. I don't understand why anyone supports it. Give these people actual paid jobs, and they come off JSA?! Why on earth should people be made to work for the same as JSA when actually paying them for the work they do would get them off benefits fullstop? Companies use it to get free staff, and people think its great as its punishing 'workshy scroungers' or whatever

[hijaxers]

Originally Posted by parmnion

Oh thee old search the internet yourself deflection tactic....i just did, cant see a thing...can you back up the accusation?

Well a good friend of mine worked in one of the offices and they did have targets and were totally sanctioning people that did not deserve it.

[Toy Soldier]

I've only been on JSA once but they did almost sanction me... When they discovered that I had "voluntarily" left my previous employment in Dundee when our circumstances changed and we'd had to move to Lancashire . I managed to convince them that an 8-hour-round commute costing over £100 a day was just a touch unreasonable.

And honestly we were so ****ing poor on Jobseekers, it was a miserable existence. We were struggling even when I was working full time at min wage and we had tax credits for our first daughter . I personally don't believe for a second that anyone chooses that existence who isn't majorly depressed. The idea that people are "living it up" on benefits is absolute nonsense, unless they're committing some sort of fraud that means they're getting way more than what is normal (or working cash in hand on the side).

[parmnion]

Originally Posted by hijaxers

Well a good friend of mine worked in one of the offices and they did have targets and were totally sanctioning people that did not deserve it.

Thats down to the individual worker who didnt want to risk losing a pay rise...

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I've only been on JSA once but they did almost sanction me... When they discovered that I had "voluntarily" left my previous employment in Dundee when our circumstances changed and we'd had to move to Lancashire . I managed to convince them that an 8-hour-round commute costing over £100 a day was just a touch unreasonable.

And honestly we were so ****ing poor on Jobseekers, it was a miserable existence. We were struggling even when I was working full time at min wage and we had tax credits for our first daughter . I personally don't believe for a second that anyone chooses that existence who isn't majorly depressed. The idea that people are "living it up" on benefits is absolute nonsense, unless they're committing some sort of fraud that means they're getting way more than what is normal (or working cash in hand on the side).

I wuld say this happens more than it should

I don't agree with people being put into jobs and just paid their JSA, if they are in work they should be paid the same rate as others who are employed by the company, I also think that people shouldn't just be matched to jobs they are interested in, as ultimately all jobs will teach some 'soft skills" dealing with co-workers, being punctual, etc and being in work it is easier to find another job than being out of work ime

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I wuld say this happens more than it should

I don't agree with people being put into jobs and just paid their JSA, if they are in work they should be paid the same rate as others who are employed by the company, I also think that people shouldn't just be matched to jobs they are interested in, as ultimately all jobs will teach some 'soft skills" dealing with co-workers, being punctual, etc and being in work it is easier to find another job than being out of work ime

That's something that works in theory but not in practice. There's no point in putting people into work that doesn't suit them or their skillset just to pad the stats. The Job Centre should be looking to get people into long term work, they should be looking for careers for these people. Not just stop gaps so it looks good on paper for them.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

That's something that works in theory but not in practice. There's no point in putting people into work that doesn't suit them or their skillset just to pad the stats. The Job Centre should be looking to get people into long term work, they should be looking for careers for these people. Not just stop gaps so it looks good on paper for them.

Of course it works in practice, if two people turn up at an interview who both perform equally well at interview stage, both have the same qualifications, the person who has previously been working will have the edge due to their reference. Where is the person who has never had a job going to get a reference if they have been out of school for a year or two?

Not many people start out in the job they would like to do, unless you take up an apprenticeship


Here are some possible explanations as to why those in work are deemed as more employable than those who aren’t.

1. It’s Easier To Avoid Tricky Interview Questions
Having to explain why you left your last job or why you were told to leave your last job is never easy, but it’s still something potential employers love to ask you about. If you are employed, then your options are much greater in terms of what you say in an interview. You could say, “I’m looking for a new challenge” or “My current job just doesn’t offer me the challenges I want.” So, you can take your pick of reasons for wanting to find a new employer if you’re already on the pay roll.
2. You Make More Contacts
You can’t underestimate the power of good networking, and there is more chance of you doing networking when you are working and not sitting at home. The people you work with could mention companies looking to hire people, or you may meet someone that has just left a firm – meaning a new vacancy has been created. If you’re unhappy at work and looking for a new job, keep your ear to the ground!
3. You Have More Time
Regardless of how much you hate your current job, the fact that you are working and still earning means you have the time to look elsewhere. You know the rent will be paid at the end of the month. So, use your time constructively.
4. You Have Greater Self-Confidence
Confidence is everything when looking for a job. If you are already in full-time employment, it’s a pretty good bet that you’ll exude more self-confidence than someone who isn’t. This might not be a conscious act, but the fact that the “pressure is off” might have something to do with it. However, don’t be cocky, because there is nothing more off putting to an employer than arrogance – no matter confident you may be.
5. Experience
The fact that you have been chosen by your current employer suggests that you have enough relevant experience to hold down your position, right? This is experience that other candidates you are up again may not have (assuming you are going for a job in a similar field). So, it’s well worth highlighting any strengths that you have when going for a new job and mentioning all the experienced you have gained in your present role when starting your new job search.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Of course it works in practice, if two people turn up at an interview who both perform equally well at interview stage, both have the same qualifications, the person who has previously been working will have the edge due to their reference. Where is the person who has never had a job going to get a reference if they have been out of school for a year or two?

Not many people start out in the job they would like to do, unless you take up an apprenticeship

As somebody that's done interviews, I've hired people with no experience at all over people with experience that isn't relevant to the job at hand. Work experience doesn't count for much if it isn't relevant to the job role.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

As somebody that's done interviews, I've hired people with no experience at all over people with experience that isn't relevant to the job at hand. Work experience doesn't count for much if it isn't relevant to the job role.

That makes zero sense as neither have experience, but one has a work history... I think you might be in the minority on that one

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Cherie

That makes zero sense as neither have experience, but one has a work history... I think you might be in the minority on that one

I don't think a work history guarantees you'll be well suited for the job though especially if it's not relevant. If I was looking for an admin, for example, I wouldn't hire someone with a history of bricklaying over someone else just because they have a bigger work history because that work won't likely be related to what I'd want them to do in this job.

Relevant experience is important, unrelated experience less so.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I don't think a work history guarantees you'll be well suited for the job though especially if it's not relevant. If I was looking for an admin, for example, I wouldn't hire someone with a history of bricklaying over someone else just because they have a bigger work history because that work won't likely be related to what I'd want them to do in this job.

Relevant experience is important, unrelated experience less so.

Of course relevant experience is a great help, but that is not what we are talking about here, we are talking about two people with zero experience of the job they are applying for, unrelated experience as I previously said still gives you soft skills, no work experience gives you just that...no experience


I think most employers don't let their hearts rule their heads they will take someone who is willing to work and who can show they have been able to hold down a job whatever that job might be over someone who has been unemployed for years.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Of course relevant experience is a great help, but that is not what we are talking about here, we are talking about two people with zero experience of the job they are applying for, unrelated experience as I previously said still gives you soft skills, no work experience gives you just that...no experience


I think most employers don't let their hearts rule their heads they will take someone who is willing to work and who can show they have been able to hold down a job whatever that job might be over someone who has been unemployed for years.

I'd judge it on the person in that case, I'd go with the one who would fit in better with the team in question. In a case where both candidates lack relevant experience, I'd never base it on something I'd consider pointless experience.

I've been on both sides of that situation, I've suffered the pointless work placements the job centre puts people in, it doesn't teach you jack****, it's all a meaningless waste of time.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

I'd judge it on the person in that case, I'd go with the one who would fit in better with the team in question. In a case where both candidates lack relevant experience, I'd never base it on something I'd consider pointless experience.

I've been on both sides of that situation, I've suffered the pointless work placements the job centre puts people in, it doesn't teach you jack****, it's all a meaningless waste of time.

so if a reference confirms the person is punctual, polite, rarely off sick, is a team player you would consider that pointless information about their work history?

[Toy Soldier]

As someone who has hired plenty of people (and I'll be honest here; a good handful of them utterly incompetent)... The two main criteria for an entry level position are confidence and competence (by which I mean, seeming bright / enthusiastic /... Not thick...), WAY above experience, with the caveat being I guess that relevant experience can make some people more confident.

For a management role previous management experience is a bit more relevant. If you can get management training ANYWHERE, snap it up, it opens a lot of doors (look on any jobsite, you'll notice that the vast majority of jobs that pay better than minimum wage require management experience to even apply).

But for basic / entry level jobs pretty much anywhere... It just isn't the main factor and tells you very little about what sort of employee the person will be. References should be taken with a pinch of salt. No one will include a reference who will say anything negative?

Tl;Dr a couple of weeks shelf stacking experience at Poundland isn't worth ****. In fact I'd rather hear that people tried to start a small business, or a website, or to become a bloody YouTuber... Something interesting that will make you stand out from the 20 other people with shelf stacking experience who applied.

[Oliver_W]

I can see what Dezzy's talking about; there's a little something called "transferable skills", which basically means experience from a previous job which can be used to help someone in their new position. And these skills aren't always from paid work.

I'll give a real life example - my first teaching assistant job. I'd been helping with scouts for a couple of years before, but had little to no paid work. Meanwhile another applicant had only ever worked in retail, and their only experience of working with kids was their own. Should the school have gone for the latter, because they had a reference from a shop?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

As someone who has hired plenty of people (and I'll be honest here; a good handful of them utterly incompetent)... The two main criteria for an entry level position are confidence and competence (by which I mean, seeming bright / enthusiastic /... Not thick...), WAY above experience, with the caveat being I guess that relevant experience can make some people more confident.

For a management role previous management experience is a bit more relevant. If you can get management training ANYWHERE, snap it up, it opens a lot of doors (look on any jobsite, you'll notice that the vast majority of jobs that pay better than minimum wage require management experience to even apply).

But for basic / entry level jobs pretty much anywhere... It just isn't the main factor and tells you very little about what sort of employee the person will be. References should be taken with a pinch of salt. No one will include a reference who will say anything negative?

Tl;Dr a couple of weeks shelf stacking experience at Poundland isn't worth ****. In fact I'd rather hear that people tried to start a small business, or a website, or to become a bloody YouTuber... Something interesting that will make you stand out from the 20 other people with shelf stacking experience who applied.

No they cant say anything negative but as someone who reads references on a regular basis as part of my job, it is very easy to differentiate between a good ref and a bad one, it's what they don't say you generally look out for

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I can see what Dezzy's talking about; there's a little something called "transferable skills", which basically means experience from a previous job which can be used to help someone in their new position. And these skills aren't always from paid work.

I'll give a real life example - my first teaching assistant job. I'd been helping with scouts for a couple of years before, but had little to no paid work. Meanwhile another applicant had only ever worked in retail, and their only experience of working with kids was their own. Should the school have gone for the latter, because they had a reference from a shop?

Transferable skills is using a different word for soft skills and no they don't have to be from paid work naturally...for instance volunteering is a form of work experience


What are Soft Skills?
Whereas hard skills are the tangible and technical skills easily demonstrated by a candidate’s qualifications and specific professional experiences, soft skills is a term used by employers to refer to the more intangible and non-technical abilities that are sought from candidates.

Soft skills are sometimes referred to as transferable skills or professional skills. As this term implies, these are skills that are less specialised, less rooted in specific vocations, and more aligned with the general disposition and personality of a candidate. Examples of important soft skills are communication, teamwork and problem solving.

Soft skills relate to your attitudes and your intuitions. As soft skills are less referable to your qualifications and more personality-driven, it is important to consider what your soft skills are and how you might show evidence of them before you apply for a job. This is particularly true of the recruitment process for graduate programmes, where transferable skills and potential often take precedence over professional experience. Being able to demonstrate your soft skills equates to demonstrating great potential to succeed and progress in the career of your choice.


Your real life example is as far away from what Dezzy an I were discussing as you could possible get

we were talkinga about two candidates with NO previous experience, obviously you had experience of working with kids