Mandatory Work Activity placements rules confirmed
Welfare rules for allowing jobseekers that need additional support to be referred onto Mandatory Work Activity placements were laid in Parliament on Monday. Jobcentre Plus will have the power to refer jobseekers to a four week mandatory placement, which in turn will give jobseekers valuable experience of the workplace.
Each work placement will be expected to offer the jobseeker experience of fundamental work discipline and should be of benefit to the local community. Participants will be expected to spend up to 30 hours a week, for four weeks, on their work activity placement and will be required to continue to look for work. If a claimant does not attend or complete the placement then a significant financial sanction will be imposed, such as withholding Jobseeker’s Allowance for at least three months.
Minister for Employment Chris Grayling said:
“I’ve been really worried by some of the job search interviews I’ve sat through where people are clearly losing their focus and just aren’t getting any closer to a job. This new approach is designed to give people that extra push to make sure they are really keeping active and focused on what it takes to get into work.”
To see the full DWP Press release click here
Jason McGee-Abe
Project Support Officer
i had been on sick since nov 2012 had been working b4 then paid my taxs then was ok to go back to work with in a week iwas toldto go on a work placement whot about them who have been on benifits for years should these not be delt with first so 30 hours for £2.36 an hour you do work for that
that was wrong i worked up to nov 2012 then was put on sick with angina then was ok to go back to work in feb the sme week i was told to do work activity i had paid taxs b4 should they not deal with long term people first geoffwilson45 @hotmail.co.uk
I think that we all have to face the fact that this Coalition are hell bent on driving through the Work Programme and its sidekick Welfare Reform measures, whatever the cost. It is ideology, not clear practical thinking that drives them, philosophy not policy!!
The WP and welfare reform are degrading society, helped much by the stage managing of the economy, orchestrated by bankers and millionaires, why else do you think the WP exists……surely not to assist those made redundant in the aftermath of the CSR and the budget, but to finally put paid to any semblance of resistance from the working classes.
I would ask one question….if the WP is all about getting people back into work, where are all these private sector jobs????? Exactly.
It is evident that there will be more disabled people claiming JSA as a result of their Work Capability Assessments. This suggests that mandatory work placements for these individuals will require extra attention from both employment support providers and the employers providing the placements. In particular, the latter may need extra support/training so that they accommodate the needs of the disabled person/avoid discrimination. It will be an interesting test when a disabled person fails to complete the work placement having claimed discrimination and then challenges attempts to stop his/her benefits.
The fundamental work discipline should be encouraged more not less. We deliver Future Jobs and it has been very successful I would recommend it stays. We have achieved over 70 percent into sustainable jobs beyond this. Not all employers are reluctant and not all jobseekers are angry at earning a wage and requiring intense supervision.
I have had to turn both employers and jobseekers away recently explaining the FJF has been stopped.
If the mandatory work experience within work programme was linked to the job seeker earning a wage for 4 weeks this would be a better option. We would have no problems finding both activity and those wanting to work.
while I understand the need to impose mandatory work experience, I’d have thought that the Future Jobs Fund failure would have informed the powers that be : it is extremely difficult to persuade employers to take on recalcitrant, sometimes angry temporary staff – often they disrupt established staff, and often need intense supervision. Where there were no opporunities (as in remote areas) or where other circumstances prevent attendance (like childcare issues), can we be sure that DWP won’t simply impose sanctions? where is the equity in that?