Private Members Bill to abolish Jobpath. The bill about Jobpath starts from 6:26:26 so play from there.
Regina Doherty left the meeting not long after it started, she didn't want to hear the truth. She spun nothing but lies and I have to say as an unemployed person that is on Jobpath for a second time I was very shocked at some of the statements she was coming out with.
As one of the unemployed people currently on Jobpath I can say that it was nothing more than government spin coming from her, a woman who's firm folded with debts of €280,000 yet she is Minister for Employment Affairs & Social Protection.
https://www.independent.ie/business/small-business/fine-gael-tds-firm-folds-with-debts-of-280000-29021682.html
Thursday, 7 February 2019
Friday, 18 January 2019
JobPath Programme - Oireachtas Committee Room 4
Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection Committee Room 4
The JobPath Programme Thursday 17th of January 2019
Dr Tom Boland and Dr Ray Griffin, Waterford Institute of Technology; Ms Catherine Greene, Kildare and Wicklow Education And Training Board; Mr Jeff Rudd and Mr Damien Fagan, United People.
Meeting starts from 45:58 onward so fast forward to there.
Thursday, 17 January 2019
Committee told man on JobPath scheme had his CV amended against his wishes to conceal his ethnicity
Copy & pasted from thejournal.ie link at bottom of page.
Private companies operating JobPath get over €3k for every jobseeker that makes it through the scheme
A MAN ON the JobPath employment activation scheme had his CV amended against his wishes to conceal his ethnicity, an Oireachtas Committee was told today.
Researchers from the Waterford Employment Research Collaborative (WUERC) – a research initiative set out to develop large-scale datasets around the experience of unemployment, was highly critical of the JobPath scheme – told the committee members that “a traveller was enrolled on a course that required reasonable levels of literacy despite having low levels of literacy and also had his CV amended against his wishes to conceal his ethnicity”.
Dr Ray Griffin and Dr Tom Boland who conducted the research said the JobPath scheme should be “discontinued immediately”.
JobPath is an employment activation service provided to people who have been on the live register for more than 12 months and are trying to secure and sustain full-time paid employment or self-employment.
TheJournal.ie revealed last year that the private companies contracted by the State to run the scheme, are entitled to €3,718 for every jobseeker that gains sustained employment for one year through the JobPath scheme.
The two private companies employed by the State, Turas Nua and Seetec, to operate the scheme have received €75.7 million and €73.3 million respectively to carry out its work.
No positive experiences of JobPath
Dr Ray Griffin and Dr Tom Boland told the committee about the work they have carried out, in which they interviewed 121 unemployed individuals.
None of the interviewees reported positive experiences, with the researchers clarifying to the committee that they did not seek positive or negative experiences, rather just authentic accounts.
Their interviewees recalled being forced to “undertake futile bureaucratic routines such as mandated and monitored job search activity such as sitting at a computer for a prescribed period of time”.
They said their CV’s were rewritten in order to orient to existing job openings.
Interviewees told the researchers they were forced to undertake coaching, personal effectiveness and confidence training.
Giving further examples the committee was told:
An aspiring architect had her job-search micro-managed in a way that undermined her standing with local employers and was then directed to reduce her expectations and accept other work, and a pregnant woman was directed, under threat of sanctions to accept work at a call centre in a location some distance away which had no suitable transport options.
The researchers said their data clearly captures a shift towards a “less supportive, more conditional, less empathetic, more pressurising, welfare system, where the threat of sanctions was constant and individuals felt forced to perform as directed by case officers in Intreo or JobPath providers, often against their better judgement and usually without any positive outcome”.
Under the JobPath scheme many respondents told the researchers that they felt “actively and capriciously patronised, cajoled, threatened, manipulated and bullied”.
All respondents detailed the continual threat of sanctions, which made engagement and compliance with various tasks compulsory.
Our data demonstrates that beyond the actual application of sanctions, that the process of activation under threat of sanction is in and of itself a negative experience; the process is the punishment, as it were.
‘Poor practice’
Catherine Greene of the Kildare and Wicklow Education Training Board, but speaking on behalf of all training boards nationwide, said their organisations should have been tasked with the job that JobPath have been doing for the last number of years.
She told the committee it was “poor practice” to lift the JobPath model from the UK without making any changes or adaptations for working with the Irish public”.
She said the Job Path model was based on the model being used by the G4S recruitment company in the UK, which was criticised by the UK Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills.
“We have no difficulty with recruitment agencies as a model of accessing employment, but to use these services people must be highly skilled, workplace ready,” she said.
In terms of personal client testimony, she said to be referred to Turas Nua or Seetec – the private companies who are paid to run the scheme “is to be placed in a very vulnerable position and denied access to further education and training”.
There appears to have been a lack of recognition by Turas Nua of the trauma for people being at a major crossroads in their lives, in addition to a lack of understanding of their need to manage challenging barriers in terms of childcare, transport, disability, illness, bereavement, addiction issues and mental health issues post redundancy and financial stress.
She also gave the committee a number of examples of the Turas and Seetec experience.
She outlined one example of “inappropriate” behaviour in a case which a Department of Social Protection officer referred to the agency.
Man taken off education training
A JobPath operator in dealing with a 62-year-old man who had left school aged 10, and who had labouring jobs prior to spending over 20 years of his life in prison who was receiving Jobseekers Allowance after exiting the probation service, and experiencing anxiety.
The association said his only outing was to walk to his mother’s grave in darkness. His basic skills led the association to recommend a part-time literacy/ communications, computers and woodworking workshop in the local Adult Education Centre.
“He agreed to engage with the programme and I put counselling supports and made tutors aware of his anxiety issues. After six weeks into the programme he was called up by Turas Nua and removed from his Education programme, two weeks later he came to me in an extremely agitated state asking me to make a CV as he had been ordered to return to Turas Nua by the end of the week with evidence of 15 job applications submitted,” the committee was told.
“In this three-week period while he was engaging with Turas Nua, three different Turas Nua advisors had contacted me for a copy of his CV. Our client did a full year with Turas Nua without getting any work and we have recently learnt that he has returned to Turas Nua and he will be with them until Sept 2019. At present he is not engaged in any education/training or employment, but he is required to attend on a monthly basis,” said Greene.
Had her organisation, the Adult Educational Guidance Association (AEGA), been invested in during the years of austerity, rather than JobPath, unemployment statistics would have been so much better, she said.
She said the “forced march pattern” of this recruitment model has been unsuccessful with only 9% of participants securing longer term employment.
The committee was told there are serious questions to be asked in terms of the delivery model, given that it has been awarded a budget of €140 million since 2015.
“Only 9% of participants have progressed into full-time employment and 11,000 participants who previously used Turas Nua and Seetec are returning for a second year of participation. By comparison, in that same period i.e. the four years 2015- 2018 inclusively, the Guidance Services have met with and progressed more than 208,000 beneficiaries on an annual budget of just 6.55 million with a cost to the state of €125 per beneficiary,” it said.
Scrap JobPath
WUERC suggests investing in training and the Back-to-Education scheme, and to scrap JobPath.
“Policies which emphasise welfare conditionality and sanctions are short-sighted: requiring compliance under threat of being put below the minimum level of income has mainly negative consequences,” it said.
It added that the payment-by-results and short-term orientation of the JobPath contract are “unsuitable policy instruments”.
“The impact of JobPath on individual lives is decidedly negative, even where sanctions were not imposed. We envisage a long-term impact on overall social cohesion as a result of the experience and throughput of citizens through the initiative.”
Speaking in December, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar indicated that the JobPath scheme might not be needed in the future. The contract for Seetec and Turas Nua is due to expire this year.
“We are entering a different phase in our economy where we are heading towards full employment so obviously services such as JobPath may not be needed in the future but that is an assessment that the Minister, Deputy Doherty, will have to make,” said the Taoiseach.
Sinn Féin John Brady said Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty remains in “complete denial” about the failure of the scheme.
TD Bríd Smith said the “vicious ways” to force people into unsuitable employment is totally unsuitable.
Fianna Fáil TD John Curran, chairman of the committee, said the issue of JobPath has been something it has been investigating for some time now. Due to the contract for the service being possibly up for renewal shortly, the committee’s report is “timely” and will make recommendations to government.
Seetec and Turas Nua were contacted for comment, but nothing was received by the time of publication.
https://www.thejournal.ie/jobpath-committee-4444680-Jan2019/
Private companies operating JobPath get over €3k for every jobseeker that makes it through the scheme
A MAN ON the JobPath employment activation scheme had his CV amended against his wishes to conceal his ethnicity, an Oireachtas Committee was told today.
Researchers from the Waterford Employment Research Collaborative (WUERC) – a research initiative set out to develop large-scale datasets around the experience of unemployment, was highly critical of the JobPath scheme – told the committee members that “a traveller was enrolled on a course that required reasonable levels of literacy despite having low levels of literacy and also had his CV amended against his wishes to conceal his ethnicity”.
Dr Ray Griffin and Dr Tom Boland who conducted the research said the JobPath scheme should be “discontinued immediately”.
JobPath is an employment activation service provided to people who have been on the live register for more than 12 months and are trying to secure and sustain full-time paid employment or self-employment.
TheJournal.ie revealed last year that the private companies contracted by the State to run the scheme, are entitled to €3,718 for every jobseeker that gains sustained employment for one year through the JobPath scheme.
The two private companies employed by the State, Turas Nua and Seetec, to operate the scheme have received €75.7 million and €73.3 million respectively to carry out its work.
No positive experiences of JobPath
Dr Ray Griffin and Dr Tom Boland told the committee about the work they have carried out, in which they interviewed 121 unemployed individuals.
None of the interviewees reported positive experiences, with the researchers clarifying to the committee that they did not seek positive or negative experiences, rather just authentic accounts.
Their interviewees recalled being forced to “undertake futile bureaucratic routines such as mandated and monitored job search activity such as sitting at a computer for a prescribed period of time”.
They said their CV’s were rewritten in order to orient to existing job openings.
Interviewees told the researchers they were forced to undertake coaching, personal effectiveness and confidence training.
Giving further examples the committee was told:
An aspiring architect had her job-search micro-managed in a way that undermined her standing with local employers and was then directed to reduce her expectations and accept other work, and a pregnant woman was directed, under threat of sanctions to accept work at a call centre in a location some distance away which had no suitable transport options.
The researchers said their data clearly captures a shift towards a “less supportive, more conditional, less empathetic, more pressurising, welfare system, where the threat of sanctions was constant and individuals felt forced to perform as directed by case officers in Intreo or JobPath providers, often against their better judgement and usually without any positive outcome”.
Under the JobPath scheme many respondents told the researchers that they felt “actively and capriciously patronised, cajoled, threatened, manipulated and bullied”.
All respondents detailed the continual threat of sanctions, which made engagement and compliance with various tasks compulsory.
Our data demonstrates that beyond the actual application of sanctions, that the process of activation under threat of sanction is in and of itself a negative experience; the process is the punishment, as it were.
‘Poor practice’
Catherine Greene of the Kildare and Wicklow Education Training Board, but speaking on behalf of all training boards nationwide, said their organisations should have been tasked with the job that JobPath have been doing for the last number of years.
She told the committee it was “poor practice” to lift the JobPath model from the UK without making any changes or adaptations for working with the Irish public”.
She said the Job Path model was based on the model being used by the G4S recruitment company in the UK, which was criticised by the UK Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills.
“We have no difficulty with recruitment agencies as a model of accessing employment, but to use these services people must be highly skilled, workplace ready,” she said.
In terms of personal client testimony, she said to be referred to Turas Nua or Seetec – the private companies who are paid to run the scheme “is to be placed in a very vulnerable position and denied access to further education and training”.
There appears to have been a lack of recognition by Turas Nua of the trauma for people being at a major crossroads in their lives, in addition to a lack of understanding of their need to manage challenging barriers in terms of childcare, transport, disability, illness, bereavement, addiction issues and mental health issues post redundancy and financial stress.
She also gave the committee a number of examples of the Turas and Seetec experience.
She outlined one example of “inappropriate” behaviour in a case which a Department of Social Protection officer referred to the agency.
Man taken off education training
A JobPath operator in dealing with a 62-year-old man who had left school aged 10, and who had labouring jobs prior to spending over 20 years of his life in prison who was receiving Jobseekers Allowance after exiting the probation service, and experiencing anxiety.
The association said his only outing was to walk to his mother’s grave in darkness. His basic skills led the association to recommend a part-time literacy/ communications, computers and woodworking workshop in the local Adult Education Centre.
“He agreed to engage with the programme and I put counselling supports and made tutors aware of his anxiety issues. After six weeks into the programme he was called up by Turas Nua and removed from his Education programme, two weeks later he came to me in an extremely agitated state asking me to make a CV as he had been ordered to return to Turas Nua by the end of the week with evidence of 15 job applications submitted,” the committee was told.
“In this three-week period while he was engaging with Turas Nua, three different Turas Nua advisors had contacted me for a copy of his CV. Our client did a full year with Turas Nua without getting any work and we have recently learnt that he has returned to Turas Nua and he will be with them until Sept 2019. At present he is not engaged in any education/training or employment, but he is required to attend on a monthly basis,” said Greene.
Had her organisation, the Adult Educational Guidance Association (AEGA), been invested in during the years of austerity, rather than JobPath, unemployment statistics would have been so much better, she said.
She said the “forced march pattern” of this recruitment model has been unsuccessful with only 9% of participants securing longer term employment.
The committee was told there are serious questions to be asked in terms of the delivery model, given that it has been awarded a budget of €140 million since 2015.
“Only 9% of participants have progressed into full-time employment and 11,000 participants who previously used Turas Nua and Seetec are returning for a second year of participation. By comparison, in that same period i.e. the four years 2015- 2018 inclusively, the Guidance Services have met with and progressed more than 208,000 beneficiaries on an annual budget of just 6.55 million with a cost to the state of €125 per beneficiary,” it said.
Scrap JobPath
WUERC suggests investing in training and the Back-to-Education scheme, and to scrap JobPath.
“Policies which emphasise welfare conditionality and sanctions are short-sighted: requiring compliance under threat of being put below the minimum level of income has mainly negative consequences,” it said.
It added that the payment-by-results and short-term orientation of the JobPath contract are “unsuitable policy instruments”.
“The impact of JobPath on individual lives is decidedly negative, even where sanctions were not imposed. We envisage a long-term impact on overall social cohesion as a result of the experience and throughput of citizens through the initiative.”
Speaking in December, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar indicated that the JobPath scheme might not be needed in the future. The contract for Seetec and Turas Nua is due to expire this year.
“We are entering a different phase in our economy where we are heading towards full employment so obviously services such as JobPath may not be needed in the future but that is an assessment that the Minister, Deputy Doherty, will have to make,” said the Taoiseach.
Sinn Féin John Brady said Minister for Social Protection Regina Doherty remains in “complete denial” about the failure of the scheme.
TD Bríd Smith said the “vicious ways” to force people into unsuitable employment is totally unsuitable.
Fianna Fáil TD John Curran, chairman of the committee, said the issue of JobPath has been something it has been investigating for some time now. Due to the contract for the service being possibly up for renewal shortly, the committee’s report is “timely” and will make recommendations to government.
Seetec and Turas Nua were contacted for comment, but nothing was received by the time of publication.
https://www.thejournal.ie/jobpath-committee-4444680-Jan2019/
JobPath Scheme A Dead End For Unemployed
Copy and pasted from Irish times link at bottom of page.
Participants allege bullying, intimidation and threats in back-to-work programme
In one instance, it is alleged a Traveller man had his CV amended to conceal his ethnicity.
Experts have called for widespread reform of a key Government back-to-work programme for the long-term unemployed, following allegations of bullying, intimidation and threats of sanctions over
jobless people.
In one instance, it is alleged a Traveller man who was enrolled on a back to work programme with
the service – called JobPath – had his CV amended to conceal his ethnicity.
The criticisms will be aired at the Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection,
which is hearing expert testimony on the JobPath programme on Thursday.
In an opening statement to the committee, seen by The Irish Times, academics from the Waterford
Institute of Technology (WIT) will say JobPath users they interviewed described feeling they were
in a system which “actively and capriciously patronised, cajoled, threatened, manipulated and
bullied them”.
“Many identified this service as the State deliberately attempting to lower their expectations of
work, firstly in terms of their reservation wage, but also interfering in their family and caring
responsibilities.”
“A Traveller was enrolled on a course that required reasonable levels of literacy despite having
low levels of literacy, and also had his CV amended against his wishes to conceal his ethnicity,”
according to the WIT statement.‘Bureaucratic routines’
In interviews with 25 users of the scheme, the WIT academics said they reported they were “forced to undertake futile bureaucratic routines”, experienced “having their CV rewritten or ‘massaged’”, were forced to undertake coaching and training delivered by unqualified and inexperienced trainers, and had been “intimidated over technical or minor infractions of rules”.
One user reported being sanctioned and afterwards how she “was forced to rely on charity and high interest debt, and experienced food poverty”. The academics also describe how a pregnant woman “was directed, under threat of sanctions, to accept work at a call centre in a location some distance away which had no suitable transport options”.
Another expert, Catherine Greene, who is a guidance counsellor with the Kildare Wicklow Adult Guidance Service, will also give evidence to the committee.
Her opening statement details a case study which she worked on of a 62-year-old man who had left school at 10 and spent 20 years in prison, and “whose only outing was to walk to his mother’s grave in darkness”.
Part-time programme
The man was placed in a part-time programme on the advice of Ms Greene. But six weeks later he was called up and removed from his education programme,” according to her opening statement.
“Two weeks later he came to me in an extremely agitated state asking me to make a CV as he had been ordered to return . . . by the end of the week with evidence of 15 job applications submitted.”
She also criticised the design of JobPath, which she said was heavily modelled on the UK, and put in place in Ireland “without making any changes or adaptations for working with the Irish public”.
She said that to be referred JobPath “is to be placed in a very vulnerable position and denied access to further education and training”.
“The forced-march pattern of this recruitment model has been unsuccessful, with only 9 per cent of participants securing longer-term employment.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/jobpath-scheme-a-dead-end-for-unemployed-claim-experts-1.3760516
Participants allege bullying, intimidation and threats in back-to-work programme
In one instance, it is alleged a Traveller man had his CV amended to conceal his ethnicity.
Experts have called for widespread reform of a key Government back-to-work programme for the long-term unemployed, following allegations of bullying, intimidation and threats of sanctions over
jobless people.
In one instance, it is alleged a Traveller man who was enrolled on a back to work programme with
the service – called JobPath – had his CV amended to conceal his ethnicity.
The criticisms will be aired at the Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection,
which is hearing expert testimony on the JobPath programme on Thursday.
In an opening statement to the committee, seen by The Irish Times, academics from the Waterford
Institute of Technology (WIT) will say JobPath users they interviewed described feeling they were
in a system which “actively and capriciously patronised, cajoled, threatened, manipulated and
bullied them”.
“Many identified this service as the State deliberately attempting to lower their expectations of
work, firstly in terms of their reservation wage, but also interfering in their family and caring
responsibilities.”
“A Traveller was enrolled on a course that required reasonable levels of literacy despite having
low levels of literacy, and also had his CV amended against his wishes to conceal his ethnicity,”
according to the WIT statement.‘Bureaucratic routines’
In interviews with 25 users of the scheme, the WIT academics said they reported they were “forced to undertake futile bureaucratic routines”, experienced “having their CV rewritten or ‘massaged’”, were forced to undertake coaching and training delivered by unqualified and inexperienced trainers, and had been “intimidated over technical or minor infractions of rules”.
One user reported being sanctioned and afterwards how she “was forced to rely on charity and high interest debt, and experienced food poverty”. The academics also describe how a pregnant woman “was directed, under threat of sanctions, to accept work at a call centre in a location some distance away which had no suitable transport options”.
Another expert, Catherine Greene, who is a guidance counsellor with the Kildare Wicklow Adult Guidance Service, will also give evidence to the committee.
Her opening statement details a case study which she worked on of a 62-year-old man who had left school at 10 and spent 20 years in prison, and “whose only outing was to walk to his mother’s grave in darkness”.
Part-time programme
The man was placed in a part-time programme on the advice of Ms Greene. But six weeks later he was called up and removed from his education programme,” according to her opening statement.
“Two weeks later he came to me in an extremely agitated state asking me to make a CV as he had been ordered to return . . . by the end of the week with evidence of 15 job applications submitted.”
She also criticised the design of JobPath, which she said was heavily modelled on the UK, and put in place in Ireland “without making any changes or adaptations for working with the Irish public”.
She said that to be referred JobPath “is to be placed in a very vulnerable position and denied access to further education and training”.
“The forced-march pattern of this recruitment model has been unsuccessful, with only 9 per cent of participants securing longer-term employment.”
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/jobpath-scheme-a-dead-end-for-unemployed-claim-experts-1.3760516
Wednesday, 19 December 2018
People1st/Jobpath Threaten To Take Me To Court
JobPath/Seetec/People1st – Breaking The European Convention on human rights.
Note: “People1st” are a front for the private company “Seetec”.
I am on the JobPath program which is contracted to Seetec Employment and Skills Ireland. People1st run JobPath in Donegal. This is my second time on JobPath. I have no issue with the assigned employment adviser that I had the first time I attended JobPath nor do I have any issue with my current assigned employment adviser. I am happy to receive whatever help I can get in helping me find employment. What I do have an issue with is the way senior staff members deal with their clients while on JobPath!
To explain, I have to go back to the beginning of when I first was referred to JobPath. I first started JobPath in August 2016. I had previously written a public blog about my experience of being on JobPath. On November 2016, I was called into a room in the People1st building in Letterkenny by a senior member of staff who told me his name was Ted Hati* and there, also was a receptionist present who wrote down everything that was said. I was told by Ted Hati* that they were aware of a blog about JobPath and that they knew I was the person who had posted on it. Ted Hati* said that there was a photo taken from inside of the People1st building, that it was posted on the blog and that there was another client in the photo, that this was a private building and that I did not have permission to take photos. It was also said that I was in breach of data protection and that the blog had to be taken down or they would take it further.
In February 2017 I was called once again into a room, accompanied by another senior member of staff from People1st. There was also some woman in her 50's who I never seen before or seen since, present - and I assumed it was someone from Seetec. I was told that the previous blog and photo had been taken down but that they were aware of another blog (my current one) and that it had to come down. If it wasn't taken down, they would again deal with the matter legally!
Then one Friday in May 2017 I was called into the office by senior staff member Ted Hati*. My employment adviser at that time, was also present during this meeting. A few weeks before that I had applied to a job as an employment adviser in the People1st building and had sent my CV to the job ad on a job website when I was doing my job searching. He said he was surprised that I had applied for the job and that he was taken aback when he seen my name on the CV.
He said that he only looked at my CV for five seconds before he had thrown it to the side.
He then continued to run down my CV and belittle me in front of my employment adviser who was sitting beside me and who looked very uncomfortable on what was being said to me. Ted Hati* keep saying said he had only looked at my CV for five seconds and asked me did I not learn anything at the gateway CV course? He then said he would show me a successful CV and preceded to open a metal filing cabinet, took out a CV and said this is one that was successful. He did cover up the name and personal details of the persons CV but showed me the rest of it.
My employment adviser did ask me why I didn't tell her that I had applied for the job, as if she knew I was interested in it, she would have helped me in replying to it. I told her that I had it written down on the job searching sheet she had given me. I took the sheet out of my pocket and showed her where I had written it down as well as the other jobs I had applied for. I said to her that she would have seen it on the sheet at the following meeting.
After all that was said, Ted Hati* then started on about the blog again. He said that the blog had to be removed and that he would check on Sunday night that it was removed. If the blog was not taken down by the Monday, he would report me to the Department of Social Protection as supposed non-engagement.
I would like to point out that I have always engaged with the JobPath program while on it. I have always attended my meetings with my employment adviser and attended my job searching every week, as well as applying for jobs.
Writing a blog about being on JobPath does not count as “non-engagement”.
The following week when I was in the People1st building to do my job searching, after five minutes I was told by Ted Hati* to close everything down on the computer that I was on. I was once again made go into a room by Ted Hati*. There too was another senior member of staff present. Ted Hati* informed me that he had checked on the Monday morning - and that the blog was still up that he had told me to remove. As the blog was still up, they had reported me as a “non-engagement” and that the Department of Social Protection would be in contact with me to discuss how I was interacting with the programme.
He said to me that if I removed the blog I could engage with the programme but while the blog remains up I would not be engaging with the JobPath programme. He told me that the Department of Social Protection would decide the terms of non-engagement and whether to apply a penalty rate but that was their decision. He told me they more than likely will start applying a penalty rate to me. Ted Hati* said to me “We know it’s your blog” and added that he had given me an opportunity to take it down on Sunday night. He also said that there was a lot of fake news on the blog.
I was then told off, that I was not allowed to enter the People1st building while I was a “non-engagement”. I was told that once I had a word with the Department of Social Protection and they were happy that I was willing to engage - and to take down the blog, that I would be asked to report back to People1st. Until that happened, I was not to come into the People1st building.
Ted Hati* then told me I was to sign out of the People1st building and only to return to the premises when the blog was taken down. While I was at reception signing out, he was already standing at the door with the door fully open until I had left the premises.
After all this had happened and I had left the People1st building, I immediately went my local social welfare office and informed them of what had just occurred. They told me to write out a statement which I did, and I signed it. They photocopied the statement I had written and handed me back the one I wrote. I never heard a thing back from either social welfare or People1st after that.
Every single day after being told by Ted Hati* from People1st that I was going to have a penalty rate applied to my social welfare, I was waiting on a letter to come in the post to tell me my social welfare was being cut. I was left not knowing if it would be cut or not until I went to the post office every week to collect it.
The Department of Social Protection would not have been able to class me as an “non-engagement” as I had in fact, fully engaged with the JobPath programme as legally required under the Social Welfare Act 2005/2010. Writing a blog about being on JobPath does not count as non-engagement and nowhere in those acts are state censorship rules present. People1st was clearly inventing law.
…But that is how Seetec work. They try and scare, then use bullying tactics when they don't get their own way. They thought I was going to panic about getting my social welfare cut and that I would delete the blog. However, when I didn't, they said they had reported me to Department of Social Protection as an “non-engagement”. Again, making up their own legal legislation on the spot.
On June 2018 I got a letter out informing me I had to attend a group session in the People1st building in Letterkenny for JobPath. On the day of the group session, after it was over, I was waiting in reception to be called so I could be told when my first appointment would be with a new employment adviser (you get a different employment adviser to the one you had, if you are put on JobPath for a second time). Ted Hati* was present - and told me he wanted a quick word with me.
He told me that the blog was still activate. He had said that I already posted on the blog and that I was in breach of data protection. He informed me “that won't be happening” as he had told me the last time. He kept saying I was in breach of data protection and was telling me how new GDPR rules had come in this year.
- Let me be clear at this point. I was not sharing anyone’s personal data in any way. No names, addresses, etc. I was only describing my experience of JobPath setup in real-time operation.
He said to me that I would be on their programme and that I would be met in a private room that I would not have access to the rest of the People1st building or other clients. I was to be isolated. His reason for this was that, he said, I had previous taken a photo of the inside of the centre with another client in the picture without his permission - and that was not happening this time. I would be put into a private room with my employment adviser at all times. I was to be ostracised.
He told me they would be watching the blog and social media. If I made a comment about him or his staff - or questioned their professional integrity in any way, that I was going to court - that they would take out a private civil prosecution against me and that they would win!
He said to me “I hope you have the money to pay for it”.
Ted Hati* told me “You have been warned!” and that If I made any comment about any of the JobPath staff or People1st staff in any public media that the public can access through social media, they would go after me with a civil prosecution. He said to me that I had obviously not found work since I was last on JobPath. Well obviously, they never got me work the last time I was on JobPath. I wouldn’t be back with them if I had, would I?
As I am yet again pressganged into it for a second time, I still haven't gained work though their methods of operation (in my case, bullying, tried to be silenced, ostracised…).
Ted Hati* said to me “Do I make myself clear!”
I would also like to point out that the toilets in the People1st building are in the part of the building I was told I wouldn’t have any access to.
It never was mentioned to me by either Ted Hati* or any other member staff that I would have access to the toilet if I needed to use it while on the People1st premises.
When I first started JobPath in 2016 all of my meetings with my employment adviser were conducted in an open room with no privacy whatsoever as I have already mentioned a number of times on my blog, which I have been very critical of.
However, in January 2017 they had a notice on all of the employment advisers’ desks saying private rooms were available upon request which was a result of I mentioning it on my blog. On my second time on JobPath I was going to ask, whoever my employment adviser was at my first meeting with them, could I have the meeting where we discuss personal matters, in a private room. I never got to make this choice when I was back on JobPath in 2018. That choice was made for me by Ted Hati* in People1st which is discrimination.
On my second time on JobPath I declined to sign the Personal Progress Plan (PPP) which is my legal right. I said “I am declining to sign the personal progression plan but I am absolutely fully willing to engage otherwise as legally required, taking into account conditions are not discriminatory against myself”.
The Department of Social Protection has stated on record in the Dublin High Court on 19th October 2017 that not signing a Personal Progress Plan (PPP) does not constitute non-engagement. This was later re-confirmed on the 8th of March and 8th of May in the Dail during TD committee meetings.
The first time I was on JobPath in 2016 after I had signed the Personal Progress Plan, I got a letter out about a week later from the Department of Social Protection informing me I didn't have to sign on again until September 2017. I thought this time I would have got my money cut or reduced for not signing the PPP but I didn't. Instead I got the same later out from the Department of Social Protection that I got in 2016 telling me I did not have to sign on again until July 2019. I contacted the local Intro office and asked them why I had got the letter. The woman I spoke with, told me I got it because I had signed the Personal Progress Plan. I told her I didn't sign it. I told her clearly that I had declined to sign it and that I had a copy of the PPP to prove I never signed it. She asked me why I didn't sign it and I told her because it was signing a contract with a private company, all she said was"You'll have to speak to People1st about that".
Mr. John McKeon Secretary General Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection Joint Committee on Employment Affairs and Social Protection Joint Committee debate 2018:
"We ask all jobseekers to sign the personal progression plan as a means of ensuring that it is an agreed document. The customer signature is also an important control feature in determining whether registration fees are due to be paid under the JobPath contracts"
"We would prefer them to sign it. If they do not, we push them for a very good reason and strongly encourage them to sign."
"It is important that they both sign up to. Second, particularly in the case of JobPath, we pay a registration fee."
"I want to see evidence that the person has registered with the service. That evidence, to me, is the signing of a personal progression plan."
"Where people prove they are engaged in the process and are not against activation, we do not insist in every case on their signing of a personal progression plan but encourage them very strongly to do so."
I had also gone to my local Department of Social Protection office to inquire about when they were told I have finished JobPath in 2017. I was told that they had on their computer system I had finished in August 2017 - but I never done the full 52 weeks on JobPath as on May 2017. I was told that as this blog was still online, that I had been reported to social welfare as a “non-engagement”, that I was to sign out of the People1st building and that I was not allowed to enter until the Department of Social Protection had been in contact with me.
When I asked the woman why they had on their system I had finished in August 2017 - when in fact I never even done the full 52 weeks and only done 37 weeks - I was again told "You'll have to speak to People1st about that".
* UnitedPeople Note: This is a very common issue. Between local social welfare offices and JobPath local setups, the bouncing back and forth, each saying the other is responsible, is a regular complaint. Clearly in legislation alone, it needs to be made further clearer who is responsible for what and there is none of this ‘bouncing’ repeatedly back and forth allowed.
At times – too many, it is it being deliberate done to intimidate, frustrate and try ramp up further mental pressure on victims. No doubt social welfare top heads will deny this but, on the ground, right across the Irish state it is happening weekly – even daily.
I then asked a senior member of staff in People1st why was the Department of Social Protection told I had finished in August 2017? I was told that my 12 months were up in August 2017 so therefore my report was generated in August - but that there was nothing on there to say that I completed it in August. I was told that People1st did not tell the Department of Social Protection that I was there until August 2017 and that it was put on my exit report. When I asked why the exit report was not done in May, I was told that it was not the end of my programme and that my time was not up on the programme!
I was told, because of what happened last time, if I wished to have to have a communication about that then I have to put it through their official complaint’s procedure. I was told that an exit report can only be completed when the 12 months are up.
So, for example, if I started work today then in 12 months’ time it would ask them for an exit report and they would say that I had moved into employment on whatever day after I had started on the programme and that they would put in that information. I was told that it was the system that won't let them update it until the 12 months are up on whatever the start date was as it’s an automatic system and because of that, they could not update my exit report before then.
After all that happened on June 2018, I sought legal advice.
I asked why didn't People1st/Seetec put me in a private consultation room the first time I was on JobPath, after I had allegedly posted a photo on a blog or be denied access to the rest of the building?
I was told, as I had signed the Personal Progress Plan (PPP), I had entered into a contract with People1st/Seetec and I had signed the contract conditions, However, already from the very start of my second time on JobPath they are determining the new contract conditions from the very start.
One contract does not run into the other. I have two separate legal contracts. If it was one year rolling into the other and they suddenly changed the terms of my conditions, then I would have them for breach of contract. However, because they have started a new contract with separate new conditions, they can argue that these are the conditions that have been applied from the outset of this particular contract.
That is why it was easier for People1s/Seetec to tell me to leave the first time round. As this is my second time on JobPath, it is a new contract and they are protecting themselves from the get-go but are still discriminating against me.
In regard to being full time kept in a private isolated room, that was not my decision. I was informed the more I am kept in a private room that was not my choice and the more this happened, the stronger my legal case for discrimination against Seetec/People1st.
It has happened six times since July 2018. The legal adviser I spoke with, also told me the following:
The photo that Ted Hati* referred about being posted online and in breach of data protection, the legal statute of limitations had run out for that even if I had been guilty - and that time had expired.
For obvious company intimidation reason, Ted Hati* was not going to tell me that. It was needed by himself and People1st as an additional bullying tactic to try get their way, to silence citizens.
In regard to any blog, I have to repeat; the 2005 & 2010 amended Social Welfare Act, there is nothing there in legislation to stop anyone from writing about their experience of JobPath. There is nothing in there also that says I must stop writing. There is nothing in there also that says writing a blog is a form of non-engagement.
- They would have to prove to me in private legal or any constitutional legislation, that a private company, namely Seetec/People1st, that they have the legal right to deny anyone having freedom of thought and expressed opinion.
- It has still yet to be proven to me that a private company or a non-security, state body have the actual legal right to stop a person from further expressing that opinion.
- Where is it stated in any contract/agreement anywhere, that they have the legal right to stop me doing what I am doing, expressing myself as within the laws of the state?
Being told by Ted Hati* that I cannot negatively write about JobPath/People1st /Seetec or just about the work of his staff – not the staff itself by name or any other identifiable indicator, People1st would have to show me where this is legally the case where I am able to be censored, whether I have agreed or not agreed to any form or censorship!
They would have to show me in any private business or state legislation where a private company can deny anyone freedom of expression!
They would have to prove to me in legal legislation where they, a private company namely People1st/Seetec, have the right to tell me to stop expressing lawful opinion on a public blog.
By being told I can't post on a public blog or any public platform I am being denied freedom of expression, freedom of thought and opinion. Being denied these rights, I'm being denied basic constitutional rights under Article 40.6.1.i Irish Constitution – but not that alone!
- The European Convention on human rights, Article 9, protects freedom of thought and Article 10 protects freedom of expression.
- Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 for Coercion. 9. - (1) A person who, with a view to compel another to abstain from doing or to do any act which that other has a lawful right to do or to abstain from doing, wrongfully and without lawful authority—
- Equal Status Act 20003.—(1) For the purposes of this Act, discrimination shall be taken to occur where— (a) on any of the grounds specified in subsection (2) (in this Act referred to as “the discriminatory grounds”) which exists at present or previously existed but no longer exists or may exist in the future, or which is imputed to the person concerned, a person is treated less favourably than another person is, has been or would be treated.
The above is law as it applies not just to me but to every citizen in Ireland and those also within the EU. All this and more, People1st (Seetec) don’t appear to give a damn about!
=======================
For legal reasons, the name “Ted Hati” was used. This is a pseudo name used, to respect the privacy of the individual involved.
Monday, 17 December 2018
Censorship
When I had a meeting with my job adviser in November 2018 I noticed something on the walls in People1st in Letterkenny beside the reception desk that was not there in October and that was a lot of A4 sheet's that were put on the wall. I started reading them, they were reviews from people who had been on Jobpath giving their version of how they had gotten help with their personal advisers (job advisers) and saying how much People1st had helped them ect.
Nothing wrong with that.
The only thing was I never once seen or read one negative review, I never once read anyone say that they had their social welfare cut two weeks before Christmas, not once did I read on all the A4 sheets on the wall anything that was from people who had experienced the opposite of what was written on the walls.
It seems to be a case of you can say anything you want about Jobpath/People1st so long as it is all positive.
What if what was written on the sheets on the walls was all negative, one might say that not everyone has had a negative experience of Jobpath/People1st which is true to a certain extent, so where are all the positive things that people have to say? On the wall it seems and all the negative and bad experiences that people have had and are having of Jobpath/People1st are swept under the carpet and not allowed to be seen or heard on the walls.
That is censorship and it is biased.
Nothing wrong with that.
The only thing was I never once seen or read one negative review, I never once read anyone say that they had their social welfare cut two weeks before Christmas, not once did I read on all the A4 sheets on the wall anything that was from people who had experienced the opposite of what was written on the walls.
It seems to be a case of you can say anything you want about Jobpath/People1st so long as it is all positive.
What if what was written on the sheets on the walls was all negative, one might say that not everyone has had a negative experience of Jobpath/People1st which is true to a certain extent, so where are all the positive things that people have to say? On the wall it seems and all the negative and bad experiences that people have had and are having of Jobpath/People1st are swept under the carpet and not allowed to be seen or heard on the walls.
That is censorship and it is biased.
Thursday, 13 December 2018
Donegal TD Thomas Pringle Confronts Taoiseach Over Dismal Jobpath Figures
Copy and pasted from Donegal Now - Link at bottom of page.
Donegal TD Thomas Pringle used his Leaders Questions today to confront the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar on what he says are ‘dismal figures’ regarding Jobpath success rates after he received figures from the Department of Social Protection.
Speaking in the Dáil Deputy Pringle said “the Department’s own figures prove that Jobpath is not fit for purpose. The most recent figures for 2016 show that Jobpath only helped a further 2% of individuals gain full-time employment when compared to the number of people who gained employment on their own accord.
“Figures for people who gained part-time work do improve, however part-time work is often precarious and low-waged. Because of this, the State often steps in to subsidise income through the Family Income Supplement, part-time Jobseekers’ Benefit and Jobseeker’s Allowance.
“The question must be asked as to why the Government continues to pay a private company which has only served to continue the situation of income insecurity for people which the State must subsidise anyway".
Deputy Pringle read an excerpt of a letter written from an individual undergoing employment training from the company People 1st in Donegal. The letter referred to the difficulties and the pressure the person faced by the company quoting “the advisors put a lot of pressure on me. I feel extremely stressed, and made feel worthless”.
Speaking to the Taoiseach, Deputy Pringle said “You can see from the letter I read out how the profit-driven model of these private companies apply unnecessary pressure on people in vulnerable situations and yet you continue to pay millions to these companies. A total of €58.4m has been given away to these companies, money better spent on 500 houses for example or 5 or 6 schools, or reinstate social welfare income supports for part-time and seasonal workers to pre-2012 levels across the entire State”.
“I welcome the Taoiseach’s indication that due to economic growth Jobpath may not be needed in the future. There is sufficient staff available in the Department of Social Protection to take on what these private companies are doing so there’s no excuse to move on from this model. Yet Fine Gael continues to be blinded by the notion that private services are more efficient than the State” concludes Pringle.
https://www.donegalnow.com/news/pringle-confronts-taoiseach-dismal-jobpath-figures-leaders-questions/261802
Donegal TD Thomas Pringle used his Leaders Questions today to confront the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar on what he says are ‘dismal figures’ regarding Jobpath success rates after he received figures from the Department of Social Protection.
Speaking in the Dáil Deputy Pringle said “the Department’s own figures prove that Jobpath is not fit for purpose. The most recent figures for 2016 show that Jobpath only helped a further 2% of individuals gain full-time employment when compared to the number of people who gained employment on their own accord.
“Figures for people who gained part-time work do improve, however part-time work is often precarious and low-waged. Because of this, the State often steps in to subsidise income through the Family Income Supplement, part-time Jobseekers’ Benefit and Jobseeker’s Allowance.
“The question must be asked as to why the Government continues to pay a private company which has only served to continue the situation of income insecurity for people which the State must subsidise anyway".
Deputy Pringle read an excerpt of a letter written from an individual undergoing employment training from the company People 1st in Donegal. The letter referred to the difficulties and the pressure the person faced by the company quoting “the advisors put a lot of pressure on me. I feel extremely stressed, and made feel worthless”.
Speaking to the Taoiseach, Deputy Pringle said “You can see from the letter I read out how the profit-driven model of these private companies apply unnecessary pressure on people in vulnerable situations and yet you continue to pay millions to these companies. A total of €58.4m has been given away to these companies, money better spent on 500 houses for example or 5 or 6 schools, or reinstate social welfare income supports for part-time and seasonal workers to pre-2012 levels across the entire State”.
“I welcome the Taoiseach’s indication that due to economic growth Jobpath may not be needed in the future. There is sufficient staff available in the Department of Social Protection to take on what these private companies are doing so there’s no excuse to move on from this model. Yet Fine Gael continues to be blinded by the notion that private services are more efficient than the State” concludes Pringle.
https://www.donegalnow.com/news/pringle-confronts-taoiseach-dismal-jobpath-figures-leaders-questions/261802
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)