I Fucking Hate the Work Programme

That did not go well.

My legs were wobbly to begin with as I closed in on the church that passes for the office of the employment wing of the Salvation Army. My appointment was 3 to half past. I really did feel sick. Pretty early on, when he asked for the forms he gave me last time to fill in, I knew that what was arranged on the letter (a short interview with me bringing my CV and jobsearch) was actually going to be much longer. I also knew that, come half three when I had to leave to catch my bus back ten minutes later, I was going to have problems. 

Unfortunately, though more for me I fear, it never got that far; at 20 past he terminated the interview citing my apparent 'putting up barriers' as the reason not to continue. This was because I refused consent for him to keep my CV. I asked why he needed it and offered, three times, to show it to him (that's all), he said it was to apply for jobs on my behalf. The EEC's need this information.

What's an EEC? Employment Engagement Coordinator (obviously!).

What's an Employment Engagement Coordinator? His answer "exactly as it sounds". Clearly someone whose job it is to forward your personal information - your CV - to all and sundry. So I refuse consent. This of course is read as refusal to engage. More specifically it is seen as not complying. The Work Programme has 'a lot of compliance' (grammatically nonsensical, but typical of the buzzword culture I'm dealing with). I explained that his own head office - as well as the rules of the programme (I have signed no data protection waiver, nor was asked to, we didn't even finish the action plan - so refusing to sign that, again by the rules, would have sent him over the edge) - state that I don't have to give consent. In the latter case, at least, I hope so!

I said that iot was his decision to terminate the interview. I wasn't refusing anything other than to give away my consent. This is my personal data, there are privacy issues for starters. Why should that automatically mean that I'm refusing anything. I have a CV, you can look at it dumbass! He wasn't interested and proceeded to tell me it wasn't his decision to terminate the interview!

Unfortunately that's not the worst part: I was threatened with a sanction doubt. Or rather a 'compliance doubt'. This did not go down well and I made it clear (not violently though quite frankly I felt spaced out and wobbly throughout the entire experience, not that these people care, it's like talking in different languages) that I won't be left starving in the gutter. Hopefully he relented as he agreed to book an appointment in a month's time where no doubt the whole thing will go round again.

But let's start at the beginning of the appointment because it never got off to a good start. I've already mentioned, in my previous posts, how these people just don't get the problems that some of us have. They operate in a very 'gross' unrefined way. Personal issues are ignored as they focus solely on 'jobsearch' and, in this case, applying for jobs on your behalf. That's how they view helping you. There's none of the bespoke approach and the flexibility they advertise. There's no interest in helping with personal problems or viewing them as part of the picture - at all. Not only that but everything you say is taken literally and nailed down in black and white. There's no flexibility, nor interpretation of what you say: you have to make your case precisely and literally and simplistically. You have to have job goals, short and long term (why the latter then?), these have to be articulated clearly and they have to fit into the adviser's mindset. If not they decide that you are not engaging or that you are somehow wrong - wrong about your own interests experience and life.

For example I tried to explain I was interested in writing. It's not the only thing I'm interested in, but they don't want to know about multiple interests. He wanted to pin this down for his action plan in a way that I just couldn't understand. What sort of writing? How? What steps on your 'journey' (i shit you not) have I taken toward this. I tried to explain that I pursue my own writing interests and that I don't pin myself down because I don' tknow what opportunities are available - after all isn't that what the WP is meant to help with? Aren't they supposed to provide or find out or know such things? Then I can make a decision based on what's available. Nope. I had to tell him I was only interested in being an author. Yet if you take that kind of narrow vision to the JC they tell you that you need to broaden your search horizons. You can't win! He had to have something to put on the system; that's the most important thing. 

So I come across as flaky and he even tells me that he doesn't think writing is for me (I could show him my google docs/skydrive files, but what's the point; it would be lost on him). I was even asked, in return for 20k a year wage what type of writing, if I could choose, I'd do. A bizarre hypothetical situation where in return for less than the average wage he, hypothetically, would offer me any type of writing. But I don't just want to write books/novels. I like writing games. I like poetry. How can people think like this? It's alien to me, at least. Maybe I'm alone in that. I said that I just couldn't answer his question; my head was spinning. I really couldn't answer it. What a bizarre and pointless question! Didn't impress him though. I have to have a short term goal and a long term goal even though it was made perfectly clear that they were only ever going to focus on the former and the latter was just there as a 'feelgood factor' or something. 

He said I should do a creative writing course (fair enough, but I can actually write. It's not some alien skill or something I've never ever done in my life!) so I asked about training. This in response to the adviser, at the first appointment, saying they don't offer training and then the form saying that they did. All they offer is: 'CV training' and 'application form training' and stuff of that level. The lowest common denominator.

Now I'm not knocking that if that's what you need. But that's all they offer. That's the extent of this stupid system. That and EEC's and 'compliance'. Turns out this supposedly individually tailored flexible system is of course, once again, nothing of the kind. What a crock - and backed up with threats too.

When it came to mentioning, as I felt I had to, my mental health issues, I was told that, as I don't have a support worker, they weren't interested. Same as before. I'm on JSA, he says, therefore they aren't untreated in these things. They can't be considered problems, which means they will be viewed as excuses. That just makes things worse. I'm inferring there somewhat, but it's pretty obvious. Everyone that comes through their doors with such issues has a support worker, I don't ergo no problem. Never mind that people aren't just assigned support workers (and in a time of cuts and austerity) such people at the best of times or because they asked the GP and the GP/specialist just assigned someone from some presumed supply of people. It's just pig ignorant.

So where does that leave me? 

Fuck knows, I have no idea what I'm going to face come Friday, when I next sign on. I mentioned numerous times that the JC said the WP was meant to be flexible and that they referred the info regarding my issues as part of the initial arrangement. Again, as before, the adviser insisted that the JC had the wrong end of the stick. In fact he said he was going to march on over there and have to set them straight, so I'm sure that will reflect favourably on me: "what's this you've been saying about us to the WP?". Compliance doubts were strongly mentioned, they may even get raised. I fucking hope not, but what can I do. What credibility do I have? 

It's abundantly clear this scheme is completely inadequate. They are ignorant of their own rules. I asked to see where the rules said I had to give my CV to them. He of course didn't have that to hand. I wasn't asked to sign a data protection waiver. I refused nothing other than to give up my rights. 

These advisers don't really listen; everything is pre-programmed and has to follow a set pattern or procedure. There is no flexibility nor any understanding of issues and difficulties. They want to apply for work on your behalf because all they care about is getting you employed, no matter the cost, or even if it's suitable. God alone knows what would happen if I got a letter through the door telling me I've been applied for a job I've never heard of that I don't feel I can cope with. For example, a busy shop over the Christmas period. I can't cope with that environment, but again that would be perceived as me putting up barriers, not as a genuine problem that needs to be addressed compassionately professionally and appropriately - no chance of that. I mention the shop example because they view the JSAg as their guide when it comes to short term goals. I say the system is inflexible because what's written on there is all they will consider. I tell them that working in retail isn't a goal of mine. It's there because I have no choice. How is that a goal? I also have admin written down which, like writing, I have never done as a paid job, yet they consider admin and not writing. In fact I was told I should get the JC to change that because the adviser wouldn't consider it otherwise. Why not for heaven's sake, that's the whole fucking point of this daft scheme!

Thanks for reading. I'm off to lie down in a darkened room.