JCP advisor this morning was difficult....

[antone]

I thought that the subject might have been dropped after Antone came as near as he dare to imply that only DWP staff give up their time and knowledge to help members and are of value on CAG, while the time, knowledge and experiences of the rest of us mere mortals would be better employed elsewhere, and Shoelover, with typical Jobcentre flunky contempt and arrogance dismissed all further discussion by declaring "End of..."

 

 

I said or implied no such thing. The difference, and I would have thought it obvious, is that the non DWP staffers are not routinely accused of being facist flunkies or malevolent scheming buffoons.

 

Here's the point: whenever anyone shows up here to rant about claimants (and they do, as you know) they get short shrift. That sort of thing is not tolerated. And unlike certain other advice forums on this topic, we have not found it beneficial to foster or permit an adversarial relationship between claimants who post here, staff who post here, and other interested parties who post here. Now I'm not an idiot: I know the system stinks, and I know people are worried and upset. I even know that some JCP advisers could do with some lessons in manners. That's why I don't jump all over every single instance of a person having a bit of a rant, and I certainly won't be telling people not to report cases when their adviser is rude to them or has overstepped his or her authority in some way. It's just that the contributions of DWP staff have been invaluable here. Extending them the courtesy of treating them like human beings is really not too much to ask.

 

But there's another side to this, and it's important because most people have a limited amount of mental energy for these things. Believing that every slight from an adviser, every problem with the paperwork, or every piece of nonsense written in a WCA report is part of a systematic and organised system of repression which DWP staff are happily implementing out of sheer malevolence (they're sure as hell not doing it for the money)? Believing that stuff is exhausting. That's another reason why I object to people stating as fact nonsensical ideas like DWP staff being trained to wind up claimants.

[antone]

For general reference, this thread from a few years back explains how this forum operates.

[mikeymack2002]

As dx says well said...

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Yes, well said?

 

I can't understand what came over me, how I could have forgotten that I obviously belong to the 'most people' group who '.... have a limited amount of mental energy for these things'. (Thick, in other works? So DWP/JCP ).

 

I would only ask, in mitigation, that you accept that the claimant, who is faced/confronted/exposed/subjected over a period of weeks/months to a 'system that stinks' (I used the term 'corrupt') and is 'worried and upset' (I used the term 'wound up') and is daily in fear and trepidation of the dreaded announcement of the final solution (sanction and destitution), can only direct his/her anger at the adviser, invariably the only point of contact and, therefore, obviously the only readily available target for flak, disapprobation and contempt.

 

This is why I endeavour, where I can, to suggest that complaints/disputes which are outside the competence of the adviser to resolve, with all due respect, be escalated as soon as possible to a senior level. manager or Decision Maker, for resolution.

 

I suggest including derogatory remarks and threats of legal action in the drafts of letters that I suggest be sent to managers because DWP/JCP/WP always include the same in even the most mundane of letters they send to claimants. Research conducted by DWP and others has shown that this approach works to instil fear, trepidation, submission and compliance. Give them a bit of their own medicine, as it were. Further proof, if it were needed, is the response that my draft of a letter posted here has provoked.

 

The other desired effect of sending such letters is that managers will be desirous, in their own self interest, if nothing else, to address the issues 'in house' and resolve them expeditiously without it being necessary to escalate the complaint to his/her superiors at area/district levels. That could only have the effect of it backfiring and reflecting badly on them.

 

Regrettably, the tender feelings of DWP/JCP staff are way down on my list of priorities, I know from experience that they have nothing but contempt for mine. I don't know where they hide the angelic advisers that populate your world, I'm sure such exist, the laws of probability would likely prove it. In the meantime, being a mere mortal, I can do no other than take as I find.

 

By way of example of indoctrination, could you explain or justify why the continued pressure being exerted on claimants by advisers to provide access to UJM accounts is so commonplace and country wide?

 

Do you accept the overwhelming evidence that they are acting illegally?

 

Do you not accept, as I contend, that those advisers are themselves under instruction and/or pressure from their seniors?

 

Or, do you continue to insist that advisers are acting on their own initiative, at their own discretion, blissfully unaware that, like zombies or automatons, advisors all over the country are acting/reacting in the exact same way?

 

I would also value your opinion on the reason why such insistence is put on using UJM. Is it because it is such an invaluable tool for finding a job? Or is it because it is such an invaluable tool for monitoring claimants electronically in such a way so as to automatically generate and flag up sanction doubt?

 

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate that I have no personal animosity towards advisers per se. All the ones I have had to deal with can take criticism and a certain amount of ranting within reason, they are trained to handle it. It comes with the territory. They invariably give better than they get. The odds in most cases are stacked in their favour and they know it. Nor am I having a go at anyone posting here, merely responding to the 'goes' being had at me with a view to exonerating and justifying myself vis-à-vis previous comments.

[Shoelover]

I didn't have an issue with your draft letter. I take issue with you suggesting that staff are trained to wind people up. Not the case at all.

 

The other thing I object to is the suggestion that we are all such terrible people, I have lost count of the number of people that have arrived at interviews petrified because they have read scaremongering on the Internet. I know of endless instances where staff have gone out of their way to assist people - above and beyond what is required of them.

 

I don't know anything about UJM- I don't work in a job centre. Across the DWP & other benefit paying offices there are a diverse range of staff delivering a huge range of services utilising different skills. hoe can you lump us all together.

 

FWIW I have spent over 20 years working in the benefit system. I have been assaulted at work. You do not hurt my feelings at all- your not important enough to me to do so. Hell I have had worse insults than flunky. How can you insult me, you don't know me.

 

However, when you make sweeping statements such as you did, I will refute them. There is not any course or desire to wind people up. Why would staff do that? What possible gain could there be?

 

If we are all such awful people, why are some of us on websites like this off the clock trying to help people? Who was it that said "integrity is doing the right thing when no one is looking". Such as helping people and not expecting thanks or anything else in return: there are many valuable posters on here both benefit staff and otherwise. It's that wealth of experience and empathy that make places like this so helpful.

 

So no, you don't hurt my "tender" feelings at all. But I will still counter your inflammatory statement.

[honeybee13]

Shoelover, I have always found your advice to the point and compassionate, I think you've helped a lot of anxious people to calm down and you've certainly given me an insight into the investigation side of things.

 

It's a shame that the interweb promotes negative views of what goes on. I've been on the other side of the benefits system and did feel hard done by and paranoid, but I would never have criticised a member of DWP staff who gave their own time to explain to me how the system worked. Sadly, my own case was before I found CAG, I would really have appreciated advice from DWP staff at the time.

 

Hugs, HB

[Shoelover]

Thank you HB. I have seen people so so distressed by reading stuff on the Internet. If I can help counter their fears in relation to fraud matters (mainly) then I'd like to.

 

People commit benefit fraud for many reasons & it's not always greed. Whilst I would never condone fraud, I have seen some people with heartbreaking stories that have done it out of sheer desperation. They are not bad people

[Lapsed Workaholic]

Thank you Shoelover for your rational and reasoned post. If the comment I made is the cause of your displeasure I would have thought that having apologised several times now would have gone some way to dispelling your ire.

 

I would retract the offending comment from the post and replace it with the following, but the 'Edit Post' facility at the bottom of the post appears to be missing :

 

"DWP advisers undergo rigorous training and instruction on a regular basis in order to discharge the welfare policies that government dictates. In some cases they may carry out their instructions and duties with such zeal, pedantry and dogmatism that sight may be lost of the prescribed procedural and legal requirements upon which the said welfare policies are grounded. In their defence this aspect of policy may be above their competence/pay-grade. It has been suggested, though this has been strenuously denied, that bonuses and targets may also play a part. The unintended consequences of all this, at least as far as they are concerned, is that the codes of practice which they are pledged to honour, may be compromised, and as far as their 'customers', the benefit claimants, are concerned, well they have the temerity to become 'worried' and get 'upset'."

 

It might be considered out of order and disingenuous for anyone to suggest that I have ever shown anything but grateful thanks and praise to all those who contribute on this forum genuinely and for the purpose of helping others, and that means everyone. I have expressed my thanks in posts on many occasions. In fact I continue to contribute out of gratitude for the help and advice I received when I needed it.

Edited January 28, 2016 by honeybee13
Insulting sentence removed.

[Shoelover]

LW

 

Have you considered going into politics???!!

 

 

All joking aside. It saddens me that someone of your obvious intelligence feels that way. If everyone treated everyone the way they would like to be treated then the world would be a better place.

 

One thing that I was taught in my interviewing training (most of my interviews are IUC's, but it applies in any situation) about Betaris Box. It's very very true - have you studied it at all?

 

PS I don't want thanks or praise. I just want you to accept that we are not all bad!!! And neither are the advisers...

[Lapsed Workaholic]

'If everyone treated everyone the way they would like to be treated then the world would be a better place.'

 

I would echo that sentiment absolutely and look forward to the day when my JCP advisers start to treat me the way they would expect to be treated if they were in my place. I won't be holding my breath though.

 

I don't think I ever heard of Betari's Box. Looked it up and it appears to be about avoiding or escaping cycles of conflict in interviews, variations of which I am familiar with.

 

Did you undergo this interviewing training you speak of under the auspices of DWP/JCP? Would it be fair to assume that the same techniques would have been taught across the Department?

 

I presume the purpose would be train staff to conduct interviews in such a way that they did not break down but come eventually to an amicable conclusion?

 

In a situation where one party at the interview is intent upon there being only one conclusion, his, and refuses to even allow another view to be heard, ends the interview on a whim with 'Interview Terminated', would you say that this approach is very different to the approach the Betari's Box method teaches?

 

Now, if the Betari's Box method is the Dept standard, and JCP staff regularly use the method described in the situation above, why are they not complying with the method taught? who told them they could deviate from the method taught, or are some of them, perhaps some sort of 'hit squad' section, taught another, tougher method.

 

After all that fuss, could it possibly be that my research was correct and I wasn't so far off the mark with my comment after all?

 

Since a consensus, albeit brittle, appears to have broken out, I would be quite happy to return to my own little box, known to friend and foe alike as Pandora's.

[Shoelover]

I can't speak for standard, only my own training which is specialist,

As an aside I went on a course last year which very much focused on diffusing anger & not escalating aggressive situations. That one didn't mention Betaris & his box, so maybe it's fallen out of favour.

 

I doubt there is a hit squad taught to be harsh. I dare say those you refer to (and I accept they exist, they are just not the norm) should learn about it. Don't you think?

 

I don't agree with you, but I can respect you as you are never personally abusive & at least read what's written before you disagree with it.

 

How's that for a truce?

[Shoelover]

Oh & to add. My training has been provided by various organisations, but I first learnt of it when I worked for the (then) Benefits Agency .

[Chester6]

IMO there are decent staff but they are rarities

Seems like more and more the nasty ones are the ones you see and they don't care about ahh laws or sense of proffessionalism

I do appreciate DWP staff who are on this or any site whom are willing and trying to help so thank-you