(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...New Deal Scandal can reveal that not only does Jobcentre Plus promote illegal jobs but Department for Work and Pensions actually creates unlawful discriminative employment vacancies.
“New Deal jobs”
In the UK it is illegal for employers to discriminate on candidates prior, during and after the recruitment stages. Certain laws make provision for exemptions. These include age due to serving alcohol or insurance purposes, gender for jobs at a womens refuge etc.
The Government has created jobs at the Jobcentre specifically for those on New Deal. This is unlawful because no law states that it is lawful to discriminate someone seeking employment if they are not on New Deal. I am all for perhaps a few jobs that is aimed at those on New Deal, however, Jobseeker Direct will not disclose details to those not on New Deal.
New Deal Job vs Real Job?
Wonder why these job types are so popular?
New Deal job
Jobseeker has to attend interview. If chosen s/he has to do a Work Trial for a month. Yes, thats fulltime work for only benefit. This allows the employer to get free labour of a month plus get a chance of the full £2500 golden handshake which equates to roughly another 2 months free labour. This is 3 months free labour!
Real job
Jobseeker attends interview and if chosen begins work on a pre-arranged date. The first month or so (could be up to 6 months) will be a Trial Period or Probationary Period. This allows the employer to discontinue your employment without having to use the complex dismissal procedure. This period however is full pay (pay could increase afterwards though i.e. after training) and gives the person a wage that is fair in return for their labour.
New Deal jobs…
Not only is this a bad deal for jobseeker and good deal for employer but it also is a bad deal for jobseekers who are not on New Deal. For whatever reason why employers can’t negotiate with New Deal providers directly and arrange a kind of internal-like vacancies just for those attending (i.e. on new Deal) I don’t know!
Has any blog visitors had experience of New Deal jobs? have you ever seen them advertised at the jobcentre?
Hi,
I came across a job 3 weeks ago which said only New Deal 18 – 24 (NDYP) participants could apply.
Im on New Deal and im 23, so i was elegible to apply, but when I phoned Jobseeker Direct they wouldnt give me the details because my PA hadn’t updated my records to say i was on ND.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Chris thanks for letting us know. I hope they were putting through the £15 training allowance!
It is unlawful for Jobcentre Plus to withold such information regardless if you were actually on New Deal or otherwise.
They are popular as an employer gets 30 days trial of that person without paying them a penny while they keep their benefits.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi FND,
I’ve just started the 13 week VSO course yesterday (Mon. 12). I done the paperwork to get the extra £15 last monday, but checked my bank today and it wasn’t paid in yet. Not sure if its because im in between my normal payment dates (every 2nd thursday).
Along with the ND jobs, i’ve also come across pyramid scheme-like scam jobs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Interesting. I have been on New Deal for a few times and I had to wait 2 weeks to get the £15 training allowance designed to help with travel and food costs… not really helpful having to wait 2 weeks after you have to pay for them. No shop or bus service will give you a 14/30 day account.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The people who run the course said they wouldn’t take the infamous deduction this week because they knew that not everyone would have the £15 yet.
How considerate of them!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Or they read this website and about it being illegal!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I sincerely hope so!
Did you hear about the incident where job candidates were given a drugs test by Pertemps OUTSIDE the Jobcentre during an interview?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
yes I did read about that. Crazy. The tests were voluntary and not forced however should someone refused to carry out would they lose the opportunity to get the job? If so, it is unfair discrimination. Then again Jobcentre Plus would sanction candidates for refusing to complete the interview – up to 6 months.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Aside from that, it is shocking and disgraceful that the tests were carried out in the street.
As if it isn’t stressfull enough going for an interview without having to be degraded in such an undignified manner.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, I thought most JCP offices had a “medical” room which could have been used or even where the interviews were being conducted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Acording to the news article i read Pertemps didn’t have permission to conduct the tests inside the Jobcentre.
Here is the link:
http://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/news/greenock/articles/2009/10/09/392743-job-centre-drug-test-fury/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So Pertemps PDG was an employment agency in this instance?
Did Jobcentre Plus release a statement regarding it? Jobcentre Plus should be encouraging a fair recruitment process for jobseekers, thus not having them to do silly tests (if interviews were conducted inside the Jobcentre and Pertemps receive funding from them thus Jobcentre Plus/DWP are equally as accountable as Pertemps) to be able to get a job.
Employers in certain circumstances can do spot alcohol and drug tests typically with consent from employees (i.e. employment contract) and if they suspect someone is under ther influence can request them do a test – however this is after being a success candidate. Not prior to a job offer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes, Pertemps was acting as an employment agency and would get money from the company they are working on behalf of (i.e the company where the candidates would be working).
As for the jobcentre leasing out one of their rooms, not to sure but id guess that Pertemps would pay them to “rent” the room. Could even be free.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well Chris… whether it was rented out or free I don’t think it makes any difference in respects to this dispute. Obviously they weren’t allowed to do such test on the premises which to me makes it clear that a) pertemps asked Jobcentre Plus and b) Jobcentre Plus said No and therefore KNOWS about it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Should have told pertemps where to go and told jobcentre that the drug test was not legal as drug tests are only carried out AFTER being given the job not before therefore jobcentre cant sanction benefit as you are not refusing the job as it hasnt been offered to you you are objecting to what in essence is an illegal drug test
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, I fully understand what you are saying and I agree, however, in order to not get a benefit sanction you would have to try and pursuade a stupid biased Decision Maker that you have “good cause”. Decision Makers work for DWP anyway so not impartial as they are made out to be. I have experience on numerous occasions of how they bend or avoid the rules and laws. As you read the internet or talk to friends you will hear cases of them withdrawing their case prior to Tribunal as they know they cant win or even cases of them not even turning up at a Tribunal for the same reason.
You will only get the opportunity to Appeal to a Decision Maker after you have been sanctioned. That is if it goes in your favour then you will get the sanctioned money backdated but this will be months later and jobseekers barely have adequate cash flow from one week to the next to withstand a sanction. If your case goes to a Tribunal you are looking at anything between 3-9 months or so to get to tribunal and then it could be a couple of month to get the payment.
Jobcentre Plus will not accept any plea regarding any element of recruitment process being illegal. Basically, if you turn down any element of the recruitment process, don’t bother turning up, deliberately do badly at interview, deliberately rush your application or not bother applying it is up to a 6 month sanction. It is no questions asked procedure. They usually go for the full 6 months regardless of the offense. You can try to appeal via a Decision Maker and even if you are successful it will take a while to get the money.
So the argument was you didn’t get the chance to get the job because you wouldn’t do a drug test which the employment agency didn’t have any lawful authority to request and carry out. The Jobcentre Plus argument would be if you gave your consent and co-operated with the simple test you would have gotten the job (regardless of the attributes of other candidates) and because you didn’t agree to something which would have only taken a few minutes it was your actions which ensured you didnt get the job. Jobcentre Plus would also see this as similar to going to an interview and deliberately doing badly to ensure you didn’t get the job. Of course reality is, it is unlawful to short list you out of the recruitment process for standing up for your rights as no law states otherwise.
If anyone is in this circumstance and you get sanctioned, although they are useless money pinchers… get your MP involved. Local press could also help.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My partner has been sanctioned three times now. We did not receive any letters stating this. Nothing even when we signed on they did not state this untill we were to get paid. We only received £100 for two weeks payment. She has now not been paid for over a month and will not be paid for another month. All because she didnt attend a back to work setion. The first one they sent her to the wrong place, and would have been sanctioned anyway for being late. The second time there was no word about it to us so they sanctioned her for that. Then when we had to sort all this out she missed another as we were in jobcentre at the time sorting it all out!! i know they are breaking laws here as it is unjust!!! it is of course fun to threaten them will legal action which scares the hell out of them
. do you think there is anything i can do to stop them messing us around? as they have messed up our claims so many times. we feel singled out!! as it doesnt happen to any of our friends it seems to be just us. All because i stand up to them and tell them when they are wrong they treat us like dirt!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I thought the Jobcentre would at least have released a statement about it, if only to protect their reputation, but i’ve not heard anything. Too busy bullying jobseekers, i suppose!
Got a letter today saying my £15 has been payed into my bank. But, surprise surprise, when i checked my account – nothing. Need to phone them to find out what’s going on. Getting really hacked off now!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i suppose to keep the jobcentre happy and to avoid benefit sanctions it is probably simpler to do the drug test than not however the job details should state that a drug and alcohol test is mandatory at interview thereby not causing confusion anywhere ie you know in advance that a drug and alcohol test will take place during the interview what gets me is the test being done outside the jobcentre wouldnt it be simpler to have got the jobcentre to hand out the kits to persons applying for the job pre interview then there are no problems also how would the jobcentre know a drugs test(ie swab inside mouth) took place if the interview was conducted in a closed room?
sounds a load of old fanny to me for a job that wont even last ie it could last a week it could last 2 months in my opinion employment agency jobs are a waste of time
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
troy
the jobcentre ndpa i had kept insisting i used my car to travel to jobs outwith cupar i explained in words of one sylable he could understand that the insurance did not cover me to travel to and from my permanent place of work and that i was on 10,000 miles per year category also told him that a road traffic police sergeant told me that if i used the car and wasnt insured to travel to work and an rta happened i would leave myself liable to prosecution for driving without insurance i also pointed out to ndpa that if this happened he would be responsible for this happening he tried to wriggle out of it but told him if it did happen i would plead not guilty to the charge and have him summoned as a witness(SCOTTISH SHERIFF COURT) and that he would have to explain under oath why he insisted i used a vehicle on the road without valid insurance i also told him that if i lost my licence because of his actions that i would pursue a legal claim against the dwp/jobcentre plus for compensation as losing my licence which i have held for at that time 20 years would lessen my employment prospects as most jobs require a full clean driving licence and wasnt prepared to jepordise my licence just to satisfy him and his stupid rules besides which i also pointed out the giverment keeps telling us to leave the car at home and use public transport
needless to say he backed down after that but did query whether what the road traffic sergeant was legal i told him i would get my solicitor to send him a letter explaining road traffic acts regarding insurance if he wanted his reply was it wansnt necessary needless to say he never mentioned it again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Helpful hint number 464 if you own a car dont tell the jobcentre you have a car as they will insist you use it to travel to a job outwith the area where you stay
if however you are told by a ea or ndpa they saw you driving a car tell them its a friends car and you are on their insurance and that the owner or registered keeper as it is now known uses the car every day and access to the car is limited to weekends and evenings with prior notification that way they cant get you to use your car especially if you have a 10,000 mileage per year limit because if you were to use your car the mileage would be reached within less than six months then what? you would have to stop using the car as you have reached the annual mileage limit as exceeding this would invalidate your insurance thats why tell the jobcentre you will use the bus or train not the car that way you are not refusing to work outwith where you stay it the mode of transport you are being told to use you are refusing to use thereby using public transport does not break any of their stupid rules result they cant benefit sanction you!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree when you first sign on disclose you have a driving license but no car. Say you will use public transport but you have a driving license so coudl be helpful in a job which has a company car etc. Whether you have a car or not isn’t clearly stated as a “change of circumstances” thus it wouldn’t be unreasonable for someone to get a car but not disclose it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i went to job center this week they told me that on the 24.11 i can have a job for 6 months for minimum wage someone on other web site told me this…
Sounds like Future Jobs Fund to me. It’s aimed at 18-24 year olds, but the opportunities open up to 25+ if they’re not filled quickly enough. They are real jobs, paid for by the government. There are apparently a few teething problems right now, but they should hopefully be resolved by 24th November. this what someone else said……..just to clarify: Some jobs WILL be allocated to 25+ who live in unemployment hotspots. The grant letters sent to successful bidders allocate X jobs to 18-24 & Y to 25+, and, as you’ve described, if JCP have problems filling 18-24 vacancies, they can open those up to 25+ too.
Highpark, the issue that you’re likely to face is that FJF providers get paid a fixed amount, whether they pay you minimum wage or higher & whether you’re employed for 25 hours per week or 40. So there’s a financial disincentive for them to offer more than the minimum (although I have more than one customer who is offering a higher wage &/or extra hours)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sounds like an extension of New Deal to me. Do work or training for 6 months then get sent back to JSA again.
Could be wrong but i wont hold my breath.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Regarding the Car usage posts – change your insurance. Problem solved
Like or Dislike:
0 
0