Inquiry into the WP

[Grapplin]

1st of many hopefully!

Submissions of no more than 3,000 words are invited from interested organisations and individuals, including employment services providers (whether or not currently engaged in the Work Programme), and current or recent participants in the Work Programme, on any of the following issues:

www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/news/work-programme-user-groups/

[Lazy Cow]

Hi Grapplin

Thanks for the link.   I'm definitely going to write s submission to the Work & Pensions Committee, though I suspect that that particular Committee has already decided what its Recommendations will be. 

I suspect that its members have already been persuaded that the only way the WP scheme can succeed is if the specialist sub-contractors such as Eco-Actif (who concentrated on ex-offenders within a small, geographical area, I believe) are left to do most of the actual work, for which they would need to be given a substantial amount of up-front working capital per unemployed person referred to the subbie.  They can't afford to invest the risk-capital on their own. 

The present financial model for the Work Programme does not encourage that idea.  The whole idea of the current arrangement is that the Primes will invest their own working capital in the unemployed person, whether directly or via a subbie. 

The Primes, on the other hand, want to spend as little as possible on each unemployed person, so as to maximise the Prime's profit per customer. 

Therefore the Primes will say, "If you want us to invest £2,000 in each customer, the Govt must provide us with the £2,000 per customer, up-front, and then we'll decide how to invest it on the customer's behalf, via the "black box" which will leave all the discretion with the Prime alone."

Even if the Govt agreed to this notion, the Prime wouldn't give the whole of the £2,000 to a subbie, so the unemployed person would still suffer from under-investment in himself. 

The present formula can't work and the figures will prove this but I am not sure whether any other affordable formula would work? 

LC 

 

[Lazy Cow]

Hi again, Grapplin

I didn't get involved with Flexible New Deal because it was never introduced in south Hampshire.  By the time I first got involved with the New Deal in 2009, I understand that Gordon Brown had changed the formula for the New Deal, so that the New Deal would really only be the "Intensive Activity Programme" or IAP.

Wuth the IAP, all that the provider had to do was to arrange for the premises, a few crappy computers and the staff to supervise the attendees.  No other money was invested in an attendee.  I believe that the provider received about £1,300 per attendee up-front, or about £100 per week per attendee, over the 13 week period of the New Deal/IAP.  I believe that the provider received a bonus payment of a further £1,500 or so if the unemployed person found a job within the 13 week period.

Which, of course, led A4E and all some of the other providers into scamming the scheme. 

Also, Andrew Dutton of A4E (Feb 2012) told the Public Accounts Committee that A4E had always helped itself to a profit-margin of 4% per customer.  He felt that the actual profit margin was small but the volume of customers provided a vast amount of cash.   It is predictable that the provider will minimise the overheads, so as to ensure the retention of at least 4% per customer. 

With the Work Programme, I believe that A4E will receive about £4,400 for me (perhaps discounted slightly by A4E in order to win the bid.)  However, if A4E is going to spend any of its own money on me then A4E would want a profit-margin of at least 10% in the end.  It would not be worth taking the financial risk for the sake of a measly 4% margin.

It seems to me that no Govt is ever likely to finance this thing adequately, therefore W2W will never have any significant impact on reducing unemployment. 

If the pollies accept that then they will also accept the American model, of providing no more than the barest amount of subsistence for 6 or 12 months, followed by no further assistance from the Govt. 

Fine, but that will lead to the very situation that caused the Trades Unions to flourish.  Lloyd George, I think it was, noticed that somebody in Tredegar had started a scheme of "unemployment insurance" in about 1923, I think.  Each worker paid into this scheme if he wished, then the scheme would provide him with money if he lost his job.  I can't remember the details but apparently this one scheme inspired everything else that has happened since.  And it made the Trades Unions powerful. 

IDS can go back to his Edwardian ideal of inequality but the price of that will be another rise in the Trade Union movement, I strongly suspect.  Not in the sense of the old Boilermakers Union because we don't have that sort of industry any more.  However there is nothing to prevent more general "Workers Unions," it seems to me?

LC

[Grapplin]

The members of that committee are/were:

Dame Anne Begg (Chair) Labour
Debbie Abrahams   Labour
Harriett Baldwin    Conservative
Andrew Bingham  Conservative
Karen Bradley     Conservative
Sheila Gilmore     Labour
Mr Oliver Heald    Conservative
Glenda Jackson   Labour
Brandon Lewis     Conservative
Stephen Lloyd     Liberal Democrat
Teresa Pearce     Labour

Many of them were'nt all that active during the Ultimate Chaos debate.

‘Denuded’ Work and Pensions committee sheds little light on Universal Credit

I'm amazed that IBS thinks the vast majority want monthly payments.

He dismissed claims that monthly payments of the new benefit would push families into poverty, arguing that most claimants wanted monthly payments and that the days of weekly wage packets at the factory gate had gone.

‘Those days are long gone. For some they are still there, but there’s vast majorities want to go on monthly. We have to get them ready for that. That’s what this is about.’

LC:

The whole idea of the current arrangement is that the Primes will invest their own working capital in the unemployed person, whether directly or via a subbie.

You've gotta larf @ it 'av'nt you.

The Primes, on the other hand, want to spend as little as possible on each unemployed person, so as to maximise the Prime's profit per customer.

Preferably £0.00. Even currently, each 'advisor' should be gaining about £100K in payments (handouts!) each year.
Money well spent?

The present formula can't work

None does. I would guess that's why the number of 'customers' going to be 'helped' by wp was halved, halveing the
intake should double the success rate, in theory, must be trying to get it up to 4.8%!
There's simply not enough paid work.

[Gissajob]

Hi Grapplin,  And thanks for this little site by the way!

There's simply not enough paid work.

That's the nail struck firmly on the head!  It really doesn't matter how much force and coercion is used - if there's no work then there will be unemployed.
Of course this is an oversimplification !  There will always be (and always has been) ways of massaging the stats to hide the true numbers.  And now we see unprecedented numbers of part time employees.  We also see a push to get people to declare themselves "self-employed" - doesn't really matter that there's little or no work for this new army of self-employed to do - the point is that they're off the unemployed stats.
At a recent WP appointment I was regaled with the heartwarming story of a customer of advanced years (like me) who asked around friends and relations if they woulf hire him to do some decorating.  Apparently the rsponse was so positive that he decided to become a self-employed painter and decorator.  I failed to show any interest in this tory or of becoming another of the small army of painters/decorators (both legal and on the "black") and the conversation moved on.
The preponderence of part time work means that we are likely to have a "jobless recovery" (if, and when the recovery happens).  The part timers represent a huge pool of labour which will be used before employers actually create new jobs.  Thus we will see production/GNP rise but the unemployed will still be with us. 

[Grapplin]

On Sunday, 28 October 2012 11:03:11 UTC, Gissajob wrote:

There's simply not enough paid work.

That's the nail struck firmly on the head!  It really doesn't matter how much force and coercion is used - if there's no work then there will be unemployed.

There's
1    million under 25s
1    million over 50s
1/2 million 25 - 45s  ( the only ones employers want! )
1.5 million disabled  ( who should be working according to Gov. )
1    million single parents ( should be working according to Gov. )
1.4 million part-timers ( should be working more hours according to UC )

We're only a small island, what is all this extra work that needs doing, do we really need 6 million extra shelf stackers?