tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post1748655834470731436..comments2024-03-29T09:14:53.583+00:00Comments on All That Is Solid ...: The Work Programme: Still Worse than UselessPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298147857234479278noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-47788555613655283302013-01-26T14:00:15.485+00:002013-01-26T14:00:15.485+00:00The 42% as against 2.3% is a startling comparison...The 42% as against 2.3% is a startling comparison, which makes the Work Programme look bad, certainly. On the other hand the New Deal incorporated a commitment by employers to keep subsidised employees on after the subsidy ended. If that commitment was fairly rigorously enforced and backed up by sanctions, that could explain much of the difference.<br /><br />Also I don’t attach much importance to the percentage of those in subsidised jobs who stay on with the same employer, or who immidiately move to regular employment with another employer. The various factors to look at in judging an employment subsidy are MANY. For example if there are theoretical reasons to think that those who move to regular employment after a subsidy ends are simply displacing others from employment, then the latter percentage is pretty irrelevant.<br /><br />Other factors to look at: the proportion of those faced with the workfare sanction (“take a subsidised job or lose benefits”) who immediately find regular work. The proportion who when faced with the latter sanction cease claiming benefits because they are claiming for unjustified or fraudulent reasons.<br /><br />And third: what theoretical reasons are there for thinking a subsidy would improve NAIRU.Ralph Musgravehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09443857766263185665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-87036228073868688982013-01-26T10:21:46.131+00:002013-01-26T10:21:46.131+00:00I think it's quite important to name the compa...I think it's quite important to name the companies who are making all the money from the Work Programme while delivering dismal results: They are, in effect, benefit cheats. In the case of Stoke , there are two contracts (all regions got two prime contractors) - they are Serco -well known privatisation giants recently involved in screwing up the nuclear weapons plant at Aldermaston (!) and the lesser know ESG, who were owned by Sovereign Capital, a firm founded and directed by Tory donor John Nash - Nash has now left Sovereign...because Michael Gove made him an Education Minister (!) So the crap Work Programme results in Stoke come to you in part thanks to a current Education Minister's firm (!)<br /><br />Solomon HughesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-31911790429654986812013-01-24T15:33:30.645+00:002013-01-24T15:33:30.645+00:00and so we're into year two. Looking at the off...and so we're into year two. Looking at the official government figures for someone on a second year, it's 15% should get jobs. so the target for your constituency is 225 put back into work for it to be as good as doing nothing, and if you take the official scheme target to be considered a success of an extra 10% above, then 248 need to come off benefits.<br /><br />this is as well assuming some effort isn't being made to massage the figures. I know at least two people who have been signed onto this scheme after getting jobstartsMr Xnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4486641877026778105.post-25571731748541723052013-01-24T14:07:17.478+00:002013-01-24T14:07:17.478+00:00I've been handed over to a company in Scotland...I've been handed over to a company in Scotland who are supposed to help me find work. The very first meeting there was talk of one of their members of staff going out and finding jobs and of work that was available.<br />Now I understand why employment agencies seem to be having problems (Apart from many of them being rubbish of course). This organisation gets given lots of people who could do with work on a plate, has good contacts with business's which need workers and then gets paid more if the worker keeps th job. Sounds like a win all round to me, apart from the fact that it's probably more expensive than the older way of doing it, whatever that was.<br /><br />And of course the element of compulsion. guthrienoreply@blogger.com