Will She Be Staying In A Hotel With...
News3 mins ago
Need some "New Deal" advice please.
6 Answers
I've had a really horrible experience on the 'New Deal' programme (for unemployed people) and need some advice from anyone with some knowledge of this or who's been through the mill.
The main problem is that I agreed to do a placement which lasted for over 9 weeks yet I haven't been paid anything other than the �70 'training' payment. I was told I'd have the money made up so I'd be receiving the same as someone doing the job I was doing which I asumed would be paid alongside the 70 quid. Any advice? Should I have been paid by the ND providor or the company I worked for? I'd really appreciate any help on this, thanks.
The main problem is that I agreed to do a placement which lasted for over 9 weeks yet I haven't been paid anything other than the �70 'training' payment. I was told I'd have the money made up so I'd be receiving the same as someone doing the job I was doing which I asumed would be paid alongside the 70 quid. Any advice? Should I have been paid by the ND providor or the company I worked for? I'd really appreciate any help on this, thanks.
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by susan2006. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
My understanding is that ND placements provide the JS Allowance plus a bit more - not the same rate of pay as an employed workers doing the job. Afterall, you are learning the job. What is supposed to happen is that the placement provider gets access to a trainee who provides some outputs but is not expected to be as productive as a trained member of staff. ND are supposed to be monitoring the placement to see that you are getting training and that the placement provider is not just using it to get cheap labour. I wonder where you got the notion that you would be paid the same?
This is the problem, if it was a placement for a week with a reasonable chance of a job then I could handle being paid less than �2.50 an hour. I voiced my concerns to the person who was setting up the placement that it was exploitative and was told the money would be made up to the going rate for the job so I wouldn't lose out. I have no idea why they would say that other than to keep me happy. (The employer receives around �60 a week to offset taking on someone not trained.) There is no way I would have spent 9 weeks somewhere for 70 quid a week.
The whole New Deal thing sounds good on paper but the reality (from my experience) is quite different.
The whole New Deal thing sounds good on paper but the reality (from my experience) is quite different.
But it's purpose is to give the Job Seeker work experience whilst one continues to search for a full-time full-paid job. It sought to break the spiral of 'no job because no experience', 'no experience because can't get a job'. To that extent it works and some trainees find a FT job at the end of it.
Buildersmate, what you say is indeed correct and I'm sure this does happen in some cases. However, in my case this this just hasn't happened. The sad fact is that it's easy to pay lip service to high ideals. The reality is you're a number and have to jump through hoops.
But this gets away from my original question. Should the providor have said I would be paid xxx amount when in fact this is not the case? And what can I do about it?
But this gets away from my original question. Should the providor have said I would be paid xxx amount when in fact this is not the case? And what can I do about it?
My partner was on New Deal at one point, his employer was given �60 a week too.
I just dung out a payslip, it was two years ago.
He worked 22.5 hours and was paid �85.50, which is �3.80 an hour.
I do remember him working more hours and coming home with more than �100 a week.
From this I would say you ought to get getting more money. We were told he would receive a 'normal' wage whilst on New Deal.
I just dung out a payslip, it was two years ago.
He worked 22.5 hours and was paid �85.50, which is �3.80 an hour.
I do remember him working more hours and coming home with more than �100 a week.
From this I would say you ought to get getting more money. We were told he would receive a 'normal' wage whilst on New Deal.
1 to 6 of 6
