Can't see the wood for the trees? You need our free industry newswire
Are many IB customers hostile to potential help?
by pamplemousse on 16 Aug, 2008 in
Its a sweeping statement I know - I don't mean to offend anyone.But you only need to read the blog (from your link) to an IB customers reaction to their initial WFI to see the vehemence of some peoples opposition to talking about employment in the future.Im not saying IB customers can't complain about poor service or advice,but I see a lot of evidence of customers finding it an insult to be asked to talk about their health and work prospects.Why? its unlikely that someone who has had - or still has - a health condition that has prevented them from working, can just slip easily back into work again without needing some help and support?What's so wrong in asking people what they need? Yes, there is a sanction element, but all of our choices in life have consequences - if you choose not to talk to someone there s a financial cost.If you do, there isnt - simple as.I'm really disappointed that advisers - private sector and JCP - are depicted as demos who are oly interested in forcing peple into work.Believe me, it is not possible to force an employee to hire anybody they don't want to! Bit disappointed that you chose to promote that persons site - he's entitled to his opinion but we need balance too.
Hi Pamplemousse,
Thanks for responding to the blog that I linked to in this week's newsletter.
In answer to your point on balance, I agree that it's important to reflect the full range of views, and we've linked to positive experiences of Pathways in the past. While this writer does not represent the full spectrum of customer experiences, I and many other people delivering employment support have occasionally faced suspicion and hostility from individual customers. I'm linking to every blog entry I find that talks about people's own experiences of benefits and employment support. Hopefully, over time, a proportionate and inclusive picture will emerge of how different people experience the employment system.
With regard to his initial refusal to attend and eventual exemption from mandated WFIs, DWP research report 513 appears to indicate that mandating attendance for mental health cause of claim is unhelpful.
My own take on the more contentious part is that he's chosen to engage with Pathways support, albeit with severe reservations, but has then been turned off by the support offered to him by his adviser. It's impossible to judge from the blog whether his rather sour verdict is justified by his experience or not. However, his extension of this to a sweeping claim that the entire industry is corrupt and self-serving is rather easier to judge on. What do other people think?
Relatedly, I've been thinking of setting up a rate-my-provider system. All kinds of services and products are being rated in this way. Why should public services be different?
Update 9/10/08 - The blog posts that sparked this discussion have been taken offline. Both welfare-to-work customers and providers occasionally seem to be a rather reticent bunch.
Mindfever is pretty representative of a large group of people on IB who perceive themselves to have insurmountable barriers to working. I use the word "perceive" in no way judgementally - the perception is often totally accurate. Mandating attendance, as we all know, makes life more difficult from the start of the relationship with the provider. Far better to enthuse people to participate and let their motivation drive their progression.
But I often we confuse the 2 issues: forcing people to justify their claim is different from getting them to want to work.
The blogger that originally wrote about their Pathways experience has written a further update, which I've responded to on their site here.
Post new comment