From Call Boys to Strippers & Grinders … Jobs Advertised at the Jobcentre!

The ramblings of a former DWP Civil Servant ...

Badger [5491]

Ball grinder [8125]

Bandyman [8111]

Batman [6231]

Beater’s assistant [8121]

Beater-up [8111]

Behinder [8117]

Belly roller [8114]

Blanket raiser [8113]

Body mounter [8132]

Boner [5431 5433]

Boring engineer [8123]

Bottom filler [5413]

Bottomer [8121 8125 5413]

Box hand [9134 9139 5421]

Bruiser [5213 also Bruiser (leather dressing)]

Bumper [8113 8122 8125]

Burster [8122]

Butt suspender [8114]

Call boy [6215]

Can dodger [8113]

Carpenter-diver [5315]

Chick sexer [9119]

Chopperman [8121]

Doper [8114, 8139]

Duffer [9139]

Flasher [5491]

Fluffer [8114]

Drifter [8122, 8123]

Eye puncher [8125]

False twister [8113]

Farmer’s wife [9111]

Fat boiler [8114]

Fish nobber [5433]

Hanger-on [8122, 9141]

Hemp cutter [8113]

Hooker [8113, 8117, 9139]

Humper [9139]

Pig dehairer [5431]

Pouncer [5419]

Puffer [8139]

Puller-off [9121, 9139]

Ring doffer [8113]

Ransacker [8133]

Ripper [8122]

Skull breaker [8117]

Slugger [8119, 8139]

Skiver [8114, 8129, 5413]

Smearer [5419]

Sniffer [8133

Sponger [5491]

Stripper and grinder [8129]

Swinger [8113]


View original post 11 more words


Universal credit now at 10 jobcentres – Just 730 to go!

Crack open the champagne! Iain Duncan Smith’s flagship welfare policy has now been extended to a Jobcentre in Shotton, Wales –

, bringing the total number running the scheme to, errr, ten — or 1.3% of the 740 offices in the UK.

The latest figures show that the benefit has cost more than £200,000 per claimant to implementThe original deadline for the programme was October 2015 … but documentation accompanying last week budget stated:

“based on current plans, Universal Credit will be fully available in each part of Great Britain during 2016″

But this spin was later ‘clarified’, with the DWP explaining the benefit would be available in all Jobcentres — but not to all claimants.

From , 24th March 2014

Iain Duncan Smith Faces Probe Over ‘Bogus’ Jobs On Jobseekers Website

Iain Duncan Smith‘s Department of Work and Pensions could be investigated after it emerged that over a third of a million jobs it advertises for job hunters could be bogus or unlawful.

Labour MP Frank Field has asked the National Audit Office to launch a probe into the scale of job fraud on the DWP’s Universal Jobmatch site, which all jobseeker’s allowance claimants are forced to use to look for work and must apply for a minimum number of jobs each week.

The DWP admitted to Field that 179 employer accounts advertising 352,569 jobs may potentially be in breach of the website’s Terms and Conditions. Ministers were recently embarrassed by a a £10-per-hour prostitute job advert popping up in error on the Direct Gov website.

Teresa Pearce, Labour member of Parliament’s work and pensions committee, told HuffPostUK: “Jobs are posted on Universal Jobmatch by “employers” but a large number, specifically in sales, are commission only door-to-door catalogue sales – not proper jobs at all. Also, there are some “self-employed” jobs which are clearly bogus employment.

“The worst thing is that if a jobseeker failed to take one of these “jobs” they could have their benefit stopped. Universal Jobmatch is a deeply flawed tool which delivers for neither job seeker nor possible employer.”

Field said: “The heart of the government’s welfare reform programme is bedevilled with fraud and, in its current state, it is out of control. Anyone can place an advertisement on the site in the space of five minutes by ticking a few boxes.

“Ministers need to get a grip before more people fall victim to fraudsters preying on them with the helping hand of a major government department.”

The DWP was forced to investigate allegations earlier in February that a Coventry recruiter posted 11,000 fake jobs on the government website, which has itself won an award for being the “worst online recruitment site”.

Employment minister Esther McVey admitted in February that the department does not collect data on where the jobseekers who use Universal Jobmatch end up or how many complaints are lodged about the system.

She told MPs: “Universal Jobmatch is part of the Government’s plan for providing easy online access to Government services for all and is one of the services we use to help claimants back into work.

“We are unable to produce data for the number of claimants referred to Universal Jobmatch, who have entered employment. However, we know that the majority of JSA claimants are now registered on Universal Jobmatch with an account and are applying for jobs using the service.”

A DWP spokesman said bogus adverts were common to all on-line job sites, adding: “The truth is that the vast majority of employers post genuine jobs, and we crack down on those who don’t play by the rules. We also regularly monitor the site and remove jobs that don’t meet our rules, such as duplicate advertisements or jobs for franchises.”

by Asa Bennett in the Huffington Post, 6th March 2014:

The government’s Jobmatch website is carrying bogus vacancies from nine online recruitment agencies run by a Baptist deacon in Coventry, who makes money by encouraging visitors to post their CVs.

The government’s Jobmatch website is carrying bogus vacancies from nine online recruitment agencies run by a Baptist deacon in Coventry, who makes money by encouraging visitors to post their CVs.

More than 11,000 positions currently advertised on the government’s Universal Jobmatch website may be bogus, an investigation by Channel 4 News has found. The jobs, which range from sous chefs to dry cleaners, account for almost one in 50 of all those posted in Britain on the site and, in some areas, a third of all the jobs available on Jobmatch, may be fake.


Since March 2013 it has been mandatory for all jobseeker’s allowance claimants to register and use the Jobmatch website. Those who fail to do so can have their benefits cut entirely. But if some of the jobs on the site are not genuine, the claimants who have applied for them may have been wasting their time.


The Channel 4 News investigation found that nine apparently unconnected recruitment websites, advertising thousands of positions across the UK, are all controlled by one man in Coventry – Mark Coward, a businessman and Baptist deacon who has posted thousands of jobs.


Coward’s company


In recent months, Coward has received thousands of pounds for marketing job products at applicants. Jobseekers who answered any one of thousands of ads posted by Coward were encouraged to visit a legitimate recruitment business, CV-Library, using links that showed Coward had recommended them.


He then received £1 for every CV successfully submitted to CV library. Coward later told Channel 4 News that most of the original applications submitted to him for the jobs he posted were then simply deleted.


Last year Channel 4 News was contacted by Richard Evens, an out-of-work librarian who had concerns. At first, Mr Evens was delighted when a raft of library jobs suddenly appeared on the Universal Jobmatch website. Each position was offered in a different area of the country but the job descriptions were identical.


Three companies posted the ads: Thomas Reilly Associates, MF Training and Recruitment Solutions and Que Consultants. All are controlled by Coward, and his business network has many other identities. Jobs Junction, Career Nationwide, Recruitment 4 Office, Retail Jobs 4U, Career In Caring, and Find My New Job are all controlled by him.


Some of the websites associated with these businesses were registered anonymously but linked back to rental properties owned by Coward in Coventry.

read the rest of this Channel 4 article here:

Is Iain Duncan Smith Fit for Purpose? Tory Turmoil as Welfare Reforms Branded ‘Unmitigated Disaster’

(This is from the International Business Times, Nov 2013).

There is a depressing predictability about the way the government has responded to the fact its flagship Universal Credit project has started cracking under the strain of implementation.

According to a deeply-critical report by the Public Accounts committee of MPs, implementation of the reform has been “extraordinarily poor” and much of the £425m spent so far will have to be written off, with Chairman Margaret Hodge branding the project an “unmitigated disaster”.

The remarks come as no surprise, following previous criticisms of the management of the scheme, but it is the response which is causing groans of despair across Westminster. Partly because of the fact that, from the very day Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith proposed his reforms, those with long memories on all sides of the political divide could be heard muttering “good luck with that one then”.

But also because of the way Duncan Smith has consistently appeared to blame civil servants for the failings of the project, which has already been scaled back from its original ambitious aims.

Just about every administration since Margaret Thatcher’s in the early 1980s has promised to get to grips with the out-of-control welfare budget and the so-called “dependency culture”. Tony Blair asked his minister Frank Field to “think the unthinkable” on welfare in 1997 and then ditched him when he did just that and came up with radical proposals.

Now, MPs have discovered the latest proposals are in deep trouble and the government’s 2017 deadline for full implementation is unrealistic, reporting: “We believe strongly that meeting any specific timetable from now on is less important than delivering the programme successfully.”

And that, of course, is the thing that is deeply worrying the Prime Minister who has put implementation of the scheme at the heart of his programme of reform and which he wants to be able to hail as a success by the time of the 2015 election, confident that appearing to tackle “scroungers” and “the workshy” always plays well, particularly in tough economic times.

There have clearly been failings within Whitehall which appears to have had little grasp on the implementation of the policy and the IT challenges or understanding of just how massive it was all going to be, hurdles that previous governments have failed to leap.

But the buck really cannot stop with officials, even though the committee accused them of suffering a “fortress culture”. And there is a question of whether Duncan Smith had simply asked too much of the department and set unrealistic timetables and targets.

If ever confirmed, the suggestions that he leant on Tory members of the committee to ensure the finger was pointed at top department official, Robert Devereux,  would be a disgraceful abdication of ministerial responsibility. They have been flatly denied and committee chair Labour’s Margaret Hodge insisted no approach was made to her and the report, as usual, had been unanimously agreed. She added: “from the top down, everybody is responsible for the mess that we have seen in the administration and evolution of this programme”.

According to the prime minister’s spokesman, David Cameron has always insisted that, in cases like these: “everybody has to take their responsibility, from the prime minister down”. Although he accepted that “ministers have the lead responsibility”.

But don’t expect to see any concrete manifestation of that responsibility. Duncan Smith is secure in his post, having successfully resisted rumoured attempts to get him moved in the recent re-shuffle amid concerns he had lost his grip on the project. And it has long been the case that the old view that ministers should take responsibility for what goes wrong in their departments is now viewed as a rather quaint throwback to a more gentle, some would say honourable age.

Replacing a raft of benefits with a single one was always going to be a giant undertaking and there have long been concerns that, while Duncan Smith had the vision, he may not have had the intellectual power to drive such a project through.

But as far as can be seen, Duncan Smith remains secure unless he decides to fall on his own sword, which is not very likely.

So to a worrying extent for the prime minister, his electoral prospects lie in the hands of Duncan Smith – who, Chancellor George Osborne, reportedly once branded as “a bit thick.”

By Nick Assinger in the INternational Business Times, 7th November 2013:

Single parents ‘biggest losers’ from IDS’ welfare reforms

Iain Duncan Smith’s flagship universal credit reforms will make life for working single parents harder rather than easier, according to a report out today.

The Gingerbread charity suggested there would be very little financial incentive for those in or out of work to take on anything more than ‘mini-jobs’.

Its findings are a setback to the Department for Work and Pensions, which is aiming to simplify a raft of existing benefits and roll them into the single universal credit in a bid to make the shift to employment a financially attractive one.

“The simple fact is that universal credit won’t deliver on its promise to make work pay,” Gingerbread chief executive Fiona Weir said.

“Single parents on low wages will be under considerable pressure to extend their hours under universal credit, but our research shows that financially, extra hours often won’t stack up.”

Non-working single parents will also lose out under the reforms, which the DWP is struggling to put in place before the next general election.

Yesterday the scheme began another phase of its national launch with its adoption by Hammersmith and Fulham council – a significantly scaled-back step leading Labour to dismiss the reform as being in “total chaos”. 

“Labour supports the principle of universal credit but not only is the delivery of this flagship policy in crisis, it’s increasingly clear that the government has got elements of the design wrong too,” shadow work and pensions secretary Rachel Reeves said, commenting on the Gingerbread report. “This analysis shows that the way the government is implementing these changes means it will be single parents in work who are hardest hit. And under the new system single parents who want to work more hours will see more of their extra income clawed back by the Treasury.”

The DWP insists it is making steady progress in rolling out universal credit, however.

“This is a massive cultural transformation that the government had to get right,” welfare reform minister Lord Freud said. “We introduced universal credit in a slow, safe and controlled way in Manchester and this careful approach is working. We will build on these successes.”

Gingerbread has suggested increasing the amount claimants can earn before universal credit is withdrawn and reducing the steep rate at which benefits are taken from earnings as ways of making the changes fairer for single parents.

The charity also says other steps to help low-income families are not helping single parents either. They are losing out when compared with other households when it comes to increases in the income tax threshold.

“It’s worrying to see that single parents will, on average, be worse off under universal credit than they are now,” Weir added. “In the current difficult economic climate any new reform to the system must make lives better for families, not worse.”

The DWP said three million households would be better off as a result of universal credit – and that lone parents would gain an average of £5 a month. “Around 500,000 working lone parents will see a greater incentive to increase their working hours and for the first time they will be able to have help with childcare even when they are working for just a few hours,” a spokesperson said.


By  Alex Stevenson in, 30th October 2013:


The Universal Credit Timebomb

This was to be the month when the government rolled out universal credit across the nation. Six benefits merged into one with employers keeping the tax authorities up to date with rapidly changing staff earnings on a real time computer system.

In fact the scheme has only had a full trial in the small Pennine town of Ashton Under Lyne. Recently that was cautiously extended to Warrington, Wigan and Oldham. Why the timidity by Iain Duncan Smith? After all the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions likes to turn up the volume.

What’s happened in Ashton gives us a clue. 78% of claimants needed help filling in the forms for relatively straightforward claims. The pilot schemes are not even attempting to deal with people with complex personal circumstances.

The big worry surrounds the ability of a major government computer system eventually to deal with the benefit claims of millions of people. It’s not only the numbers but the rapidly changing personal circumstances of people on zero hours contracts or temporary employment. It is going to place an extra burden on employers if it works well.

And if it doesn’t? The history of big government computer projects is not good. Remember the millions wasted trying to get all our health records onto one computer system.? The prospects are truly alarming. Thousands of people could be left with the wrong amount of money or none at all. The political backlash could be severe. The Chancellor George Osborne knows this. There was widespread speculation earlier this year that he wanted The Quiet Man removed from the DWP so that the policy could be reviewed.

As it is Iain Duncan Smith remains, blaming his officials as the National Audit Office says the programme suffers from “weak management, ineffective control and poor governance.”

From ‘downtowninbusiness,