and we demand that we
get it and continue to get it and we’d like some more
All is not well with the
Work Programme the G informs us :-
Work Programme can't keep up with number of jobless, government told
and
specifically
The coalition's flagship Work Programme for the long-term unemployed is
failing because there are just too many people needing help, according to a
government report.
Yes indeed, there are a
lot of unemployed people, and people who were receipt of incapacity benefit who
have been retested as a result of the ending of that particular benefit and
been informed that they don’t qualify for its replacement ESA, being fit enough
to work, and must find themselves a job, and we can also add in former Remploy
staff ….
Any way, the organisations
which hold the “prime contracts” for the Work Programme, having been told not
so long ago that they really must improve their performance significantly;
having managed in the first 14 months of the Work Programme to deliver outcomes
on “job placements” which were only half as good as job seekers were managing
to achieve off their own bat when the WP didn’t exist, are finding it “hard
going” when it comes to delivering what they contracted to deliver …
The quality of the service is being affected by the high level of
demand, according to the companies responsible for training the unemployed.
There
would appear to be a lot more “job seekers” than the WP providers were ever
told existed … which is slightly odd, I am sure most would agree.
The alternative, that they took on too much
and promised too much when they signed up to the contracts, and are now
agitating for a watering down of the targets in those contracts, or failing
that, lots more up front government funds in advance of even getting their
outcome figures at or above the year one target, never mind we are now
well in to year two with supposedly far higher promised outcomes, is ridiculous.
As
is evident from these comments from “members of the public” reacting to the G
tale..
Recommend 7
Now there's a surprise. They know they have the government over a
barrel, it being a high-profile policy, So they will be looking for extra
funding to do what they have contracted
to deliver. With a threat that they'll walk away if they don't get it. Oh, the joys of private sector provision.
Recommend 5
Work Programme can't keep up with number
of jobless, government told.
Private firms in flagship back-to-work
scheme complain of too little funding and too much demand
De-bullshitted that actually means...
Private firms that submitted inept,
misleading and potentially fraudulent tenders to secure access to huge sums of
public money now admit to their incompetence and generally falsified ability to
honour public contracts in any way... and by the way .... they
think they deserve extra money for being such total lying, and aggressively
fraudulent (allegedly - by their own inference) wastes of space.
If you can't deliver DON'T SUBMIT
ERRONEOUS BIDS that merely underline the fact you DO NOT even comprehend the
task in hand and the scale of its demands.
Utter arseholes tendering to a government
of the same. If they were bridge builders every attempt would turn out
like the famous Pont D'Avignon ... But more costly.
7 comments:
"Utter arseholes tendering to a government of the same"
That sums it up in under ten words. Governments are usually crap at letting and managing contracts so such a high-profile effort was always likely to be a disaster.
Oooh! Is anybody surprised about this?
To be fair, you're all assuming the purpose was to get people back to work, whereas the actual purpose was just to be seen to be doing something. The desired "outcome" was positive press headlines, which have been achieved in spades over the last few years.
AC, and now they will hopefully get lots of negative press headlines as the amount being plundered goes up and up and any "results" which are achieved get worse and worse.
AC, don't forget the other purpose of this exercise: to transfer lots of public money into private sector pockets, in which it has again succeeded admirably.
The Guardian article linked to above says “In some cases firms involved were not able to provide interpreters for those seeking help who did not speak English.”
Well that’s easily solved: deport the “job seekers” to their country of origin. To migrate to another country without bothering to learn its language and then expect to be given a job is pure cheek.
"Well that’s easily solved: deport the “job seekers” to their country of origin."
Nah, too expensive and draconian. Just stop giving them any money and let them get a job in the UK that doesn't require speaking English off their own bat, or make their own way to somewhere that speaks a language they can understand. It really wouldn't be too hard to have "ability to communicate in English" as a condition for getting JSA.
Post a Comment