This Blog is dedicated to fighting for the rights of the Unemployed.
- Raise our Benefits to a living level.
- We want the minimum wage for any ‘voluntary’ work they make us do.
- There should be an independent appeal and monitoring system – open to all – for anyone on the ‘New Deal’. Not the present shambles,
- We want real training, not the YMCA etc sham.
- Above all we want to be treated as human beings – not things the DWP and Government Ministers can claim rights over. We should have rights, and we want them now!
- And now, we want the Dencora House detention centre closed down!
E-MAIL: iunemployed@live.co.uk
[BENEFITS]
If the allowance is increased than these people will have more money to spend and will help with the current economic climate which will increase employment. People buying real items is better than the Government pouring a lot of money into individual businesses (or more to the point giving tax breaks which helps businesses but doesn’t increase the customer count).
[MINIMUM WAGE]
The “voluntary” work isn’t voluntary and any slacking results into dismissal, therefore, it isn’t laid back work as the name may suggests and it is the same hard work as any employee has to do with some exceptions of employees making the volunteer do most their work – so in effect participants actually do harder work and get paid nothing.
The Minimum Wage should apply as the National Minimum Wage was introduced in 1998 and makes it illegal to employ people for under this. The contract between the Jobcentre and employer makes you an employee of their company during your term.
My “voluntary work experience” to get me back into work of an administration role consisted of heavy lifting of large items up and downstairs – not sure how this helped with my office experience but 9 to 5.30 while supervisors stood around while paid was disgusting.
[INDEPENDENT APPEAL AND MONITORING SYSTEM]
Long overdue! Participants are dismissed after a verbal conversation – the paperwork is just as evidence and doesn’t get checked. Once the phone call ends, your claim has ended. The Job centre staff has no discretion and can’t reject a training provider’s request for dismissal. Decision Makers do not reply other than to alert you of a benefit ban – should one exist.
[REAL TRAINING]
YMCA Training… you would have thought they did something that constituted training, wouldn’t you? At Dencora House detention centre you sit all day doing unsupervised Job search. No training opportunities available of any kind.
[TREATMENT AS HUMAN BEINGS]
We are not moaning about having to attend a course – generally we all like to develop ourselves and meet new people – but your treatment on the course is like being an object – a “thing”.
Many people are dismissed for trivial reasons and lies to lower the numbers of the already overcrowded rooms in the centre.
Going to the toilet or getting a drink of water outside allocated breaks is a possible dismissal offence and so is taking a plastic cup of water or cup of tea or coffee outside the centre (the small break-out areas are not enough to hold the people in attendance so people venture outside).
No independent review so what they say becomes the truth – regardless of it being as far from the truth as possible.
For example, walk outside the centre on your break for a cigarette (both going outside and smoking in the the designated smoking area is permitted) and you could be randomly chosen for dismissal to ease overcrowding – the reason would be “walked out of the training centre” which is true but out of context. Depending on the staff member, accusations of being abusive, having a bad attitude or being rude could also join the above reason.
[CLOSE THE DETENTION CENTRE]
I couldn’t agree more. Even though participants aren’t chained or behind bars… being an participant of the detention centre is like being in a prison, an open prison… you can decide to walk out (even for a fag or some fresh air) but every possible action you do warrant some potential unfair punishment.
Finish reading the job paper or coming off the computer to let someone else use it – too early – as defined at the staff members discretion can also warrant dismissal. So can doing nothing when there is nothing to do regardless if your job log has been completed and a stack of envelopes are beside you.
This is for YMCA Training’s best interests too! If participants decide not to go there for their unfair treatment then they will be paying overheads for no reason. perhaps they can have the initiative to spend the difference on participants at another centre?
Comment by Dan — May 13, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
I have place this website as the Home Page on all computers at Dencora House today. Hopefully some of my fellow detainees here will read it.
There has also been print outs of your articles left around the centre.
The staff have been going round ripping them off the walls. They then get put up again.
People who merely found this site as the home pagfe have been undertaking these actions on their own.
Hopefully more people will involve themselves in such sabotage. If we make it too much hassle for them to treat us like this then they will be forced to stop!
Comment by :) — May 26, 2009 @ 1:44 pm
I wonder if tomorrow will be the same?
Today we noticed the increase in hits from other sources than the usual (search engines, wordpress tag pages, others blog posts, email and YMCA Training webmail) and now I know why
Everyones efforts in this including your own is well appreciated. Keep up the good work!
Comment by Dan — May 26, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
[...] – others will be forthcoming – yes you bloody will!) from the town. Its objectives are here. [...]
Pingback by Extension du domaine de la lutte. « Tendance Coatesy — May 19, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Congrats.
I wonder what they’ll do when I get there!
Comment by Andrew Coates — May 27, 2009 @ 10:12 am
Yes, it will be very interesting indeed. keep us all informed
Comment by Dan — May 27, 2009 @ 10:54 am
I can’t believe that they banned you. Then on second thoughts after all the trouble I had earlier this year, it doesn’t even come as a surprise!
My Google Alerts (emails of search terms of web search, blog and news) has brought up numerous different blog sites reporting this. This is a section 23 paragraph 1 breach of contract. Of course, it is still early days …
Comment by Dan — June 1, 2009 @ 3:28 pm
[...] is even more on the Ipswich Unemployed Action site. We are not moaning about having to attend a course – [...]
Pingback by Why faith-based welfare doesn’t work « Max Dunbar — June 1, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
[...] is even more on the Ipswich Unemployed Action site. We are not moaning about having to attend a course – [...]
Pingback by Why faith-based welfare doesn’t work « Shiraz Socialist — June 1, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
[...] And here is the website of Ipswich Unemployed Action [...]
Pingback by New Deal = bum deal « Milton Keynes Communists — June 2, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
I live in Blackpool and last year I was forced onto the New Deal. It was introduced to me as “A fresh approach to help me get the job I really want to do”. The reality however, could not have been more different. I was forced to attend a training centre called MBW Training, which sounds similar to your YMCA. The regime was harsh and there was the constant threat of stopping benefits. There were targets for job applications, but the staff had absolutely no interest whatsoever in the outcome of applications. At the start of the programme we were forced to sign a document agreeing that the training company could contact any future employer. This is so they can get even more tax-payers money from the Job Centre. When I started work (not as a result of the New Deal) I informed my new employer (in writing) that I was withdrawing my consent for the training company receiving any information about my employment. The employer should not then give them any information as this would be against data protection. I would suggest that anyone dissatisfied with their training provider does this, as this hurts them with their targets and in their pockets!
Several years ago I wrote to my (Labour) MP asking for the abolition of the Job Seekers Agreement and New Deal and the repeal of the Job Seekers Act (responsible for the sanctions). He wrote back defending them. That is when he lost my vote. I have since attacked him several times in the local paper and will continue to do so until he is removed at the next election. At the next election I would ask people to bear in mind that the Conservatives introduced the Job Seekers Act/Agreement and Labour introduced the New Deal. When they ask for your vote, remind them of this.
Comment by Blackpool Lad — June 15, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Thanks for commenting – it is a very interesting to read up on a universal trend: I am getting to the stage where I might offer an award of some cash sum for someone to tell me just one single provider (even if it is just a sub-contractor) where the experience was positive.
It can’t all be bad… surely?
New Deal participants are not legally bound to fill in any forms there or sign any documents other than the referral form and time sheets.
Of course like YMCA Training, you had no choice and you would have lost your benefits if you stuck up for your rights.
You are absolutely right – any employer wouldn’t be able to disclose such information anyway.
Two exceptions of this however:
1) if they were with you at the time and also signed the agreement or
2) if the provider contacted them and your employer asked you and you agreed. Most employers would likely just discard the request.
After I was exited, the training provider knew more about my appointments at the Jobcentre than I did. I found out via them. Remember after being dismissed my *NEW* claim at the Jobcentre had nothing to do with them and they shouldn’t have been told – and – I should have.
It actually isn’t legit anyway, the sustainable Job Outcome bonus is designed if THEY can get you a job that lasts 3 months or more. If you are in a job say 2 months after the course ended they are NOT entitled to that bonus. This is fraud.
I wrote to my local MP (Mole) and he has still not got back to me. I suggest (if he is reading this) that he replies ASAP.
It makes you think… the Jobseekers Act 1995 – it is relatively a new law in comparison – needs to be replaced rather than new legislation change, adding and removing parts from it.
The problem is regardless if MPs aren’t elected none of them will be unfortunate enough to have to live on the dole. Shame.
Comment by Dan — June 15, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
There were several people on my New Deal course who were over 50, who had been told by the Job Centre that their participation was mandatory. They were somewhat surprised when I showed them (on the Job Centre website) that their participation was optional. I suggested they make an official complaint (in writing) to the Job Centre manager (I even offered to help them with the letter). In my time there I helped several people with a variety of complaint letters. The response of the training company was to encourage me to apply for a job there. I refused on principle as I am vehemently opposed to what they do.
The moral of the story is: if you’re unhappy, complain (in writing) and tell them when you expect a reply. This is much more effective than shouting and swearing (though I fully appreciate the frustration). You will be a much bigger thorn in their side and they will be wary of crossing you in future.
Comment by Blackpool Lad — June 15, 2009 @ 1:29 pm
I agree. Complaining is the best way, however, don’t expect anything major to come out of it.
It is very common for the Jobcentre to lie to job seekers and this act is on the increase!
Perhaps Ipswich Unemployed Action will publish a guide for potential and current claimants of job seeker allowance explaining expectations, rights and responsibilities.
The problem with this is Jobcentres seem to vary slightly on procedure and of course they get the final say not some manual.
Comment by Dan — June 16, 2009 @ 6:59 pm
I have heard it is best to complain to the District Manager not the Jobcentre Manager or New Deal Manager.
Comment by Simon Rogers — June 28, 2009 @ 3:16 pm
thanks for the information and good luck. Is it legal to record interviews at the job centre with “advisers” with recorders that can be discreetly hidden in the pocket?
regards john
Comment by john gravis — June 28, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
I always record interviews not sure whether it is legal or not. It isnt so much to record them but to record myself for future reference should they claim I said something I didnt as I had previously fallen victim to that before.
Comment by Simon Rogers — June 28, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
yes, recording youre interviews does help remembering what you may have said,its just occured to me “how do they remember what we have said,unless of course they can type faster than you can talk!
Comment by john gravis — June 29, 2009 @ 3:26 pm
Rumours have it at some jobcentre branches they “bug” some desks.
I think this is only widespread when interviewed under suspicion of fraud or when an issue with your claim arises.
Typically, they make up what you said – this is the issue here – even those you speak with on the phone when your call is recorded seem to quote you saying something completely different then what you said.
Comment by Ipswich Unemployed Action — June 29, 2009 @ 4:55 pm
[...] Ipswich Unemployed Action Blog has received 3.5 times more web traffic since reporting the New Deal fraud. [...]
Pingback by Hits increase 10 TIMES while a4e remain under investigation « DWP New Deal Scandal — July 1, 2009 @ 8:18 am
If they are interviewing about fraud, just like in a Police interview, they have to caution you first that anything you say can be used in evidence. They should also record the interview (and tell you that they are recording it, with the tape machine clearly visible). You should receive a copy of the tape. I am aware of someone who was tricked into making (and signing) a statement about fraud, whilst not under caution, by a member of Job Centre staff who was not a fraud officer. Guess what, they were then interviewed by fraud officers and the only evidence was their signed statement!
Just as in a Police interview, ensure you have a solicitor present during your interview. Job Centre staff will probably tell you (off the record) that you don’t need a solicitor and having a solicitor will prolong the process. Before the interview the Job Centre will be required to provide what is known as ‘disclosure’. This is where the solicitor sees the (Job Centre’s) evidence beforehand in order that they can advise you about how to deal with the interview. If the solicitor tells you to answer “No comment” to every question, heed their advice. I am not the biggest fan of the legal profession, but in this situation they have their uses. Also, if someone is unemployed they should be entitled to Legal Aid.
I look forward to the corrupt politicians being prosecuted for fraud, similarly.
Comment by Blackpool Lad — July 6, 2009 @ 12:04 pm
The whole clamping down on benefit fraud issue was generally just a trick in case their expenses scandal came out – it is like shifting the blame from Parliament back on to the people i.e. the adverts etc.
It is all about being on the right side of the table… two a4e employees (well more then that but just to make it simple), one also claims benefit she isn’t entitled to, the other forged documents etc. on behalf of the company, so the company gained money it wasn’t entitled to, both with around the same amount of money, the benefit fraudster in an individual capacity goes to jail for almost a year, the other employee gets sacked and no further action is taken against that person or the company. Disgusting.
I can’t see any MP’s being prosecuted – they seem happy just allowing the money to be returned.
Comment by Ipswich Unemployed Action — July 6, 2009 @ 8:08 pm
I take your point about the (seemingly) endless, nauseating adverts.
So let’s get this straight. Unemployed people have to live on £60.50 a week. Out of this they have to feed and clothe themselves, have some sort of social life, possibly own a car, which they have to tax, insure, MOT and maintain as well as putting petrol in it. In addition, they have to buy a TV licence. If they have a mortgage, the interest is paid (only the full amount after six months). Housing benefit can usually be claimed, but it doesn’t always cover the rent payable. Doesn’t leave a lot, does it?
A back-bench MP receives £63,000 a year plus expenses minimum. Cabinet ministers are paid £140,000 a year plus expenses, some get a home thrown in. If any of them lose their seats at a general election, there is a generous compensation package to ensure they don’t have to sign on. They also receive generous pensions.
My point is: who is most likely to feel the need to fiddle, an unemployed person or a politician? And if it goes to court, who should be punished the hardest, the needy or the greedy? I think we all know the answers to these questions, but British justice doesn’t work like that. Like politics, people’s opinion of British justice is at an all time low. What is needed is to start to redress the problem, starting with those MPs who have claimed expenses for mortgages that have already been paid off. An immediate long prison sentence, together with reclaiming all the proceeds of their criminal behaviour is the minimum acceptable. Personally, I would like to see them publicly flogged in parliament square, to set an example to the others. I won’t hold my breath though. Them being held to account is as likely as Blair being prosecuted over the illegal war in Iraq.
Comment by Blackpool Lad — July 8, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
Has anyone else seen the booklet given out by the Jobcentre called
A pocket guide to A4E + FND? It’s full of glossy photo’s of multiracial models smiling fake grins, this isn’t what I saw on a YMCA style course. Why don’t they tell the truth, that you’ll be sat in a damp room and treated like sh*t.
Comment by Robert — October 26, 2009 @ 12:08 am
im about to be put on new deal for the 4th time and its really starting to annoy me im at college at the moment doing a course and now if i cant transfare to night courses they’re going to force me to quit the course. surely their must be something we can do? ive tried writing complaints ive tried the citizens advice beauro im even contemplaiting complaining to my MP. advice anyone?
Comment by Elredin — November 12, 2009 @ 7:47 pm
Have you been claiming travel?
If so were you deducted £4 per week each time you were on the course?
Comment by Flexible New Deal — November 12, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Best of luck to you. I truly hope you succeed.
Comment by chris — December 10, 2009 @ 5:34 am