Source: Private Eye
News reaches the Eye that thanks to a computer cock-up, tens of thousands of jobseekers may have been firning off blank emails to prospective employers, instead of their CV's. No wonder they have not managed to secure any work.
Since March,benefit claimants with access to the internet are obliged to use the DWP online Universal Jobmatch - which is supposed to match jobseekers with suitable available jobs - or risk losing their jobseekers' allowance. The system, run by the US-based job adveriser Monitor under a £15m DWP contract, checks how active jobseekers are in pursuing work.
But some have recently been told by their JCP and employment agencies that if they opted to mark their online CV's "private" rather than "public", the system merely forwarded blank files, thwarting any chances of the unemployed landing a job.
One young Manchester arts graduate, who contacted the Eye after being told last week of the "error" on the direct gov websites, said he had applied for 572 jobs via the system and was furious to learn it had been a waste of time. He had ticked the "private" box, intending that hi CV should be viewed only by the employer he was applying to, rather than the public box, which he understood could be viewed by all job advertisers.
That he should be concerned about online security and identification theft is not surprising - not least as the Eye has already highlighted how lack of any effective policing of the DWP jobs site means dodgy employers, scammers and others ave been able to exploit the unemployed. Hundreds of jobs are advertised where agencies flout the minimum wage. Others are offering jobs that do not exist, are little sort of pyramid selling or could cost the jobseeker money.
A former postman also told the Eye that he made a similar decision to mark his CV private and was told by his employment service last week, without apology, that only blank emails ad been sent out on is behalf. e said he had made dozens of applications and had also been troubled because the system was flagging up "alerts" on his account, indicating he hadn't been "active" in his job search when he clearly had been.
The DWP said it was not aware of any problems with the system, insisting "There has been repeated testing of the CV function and in all tests the employer received a complete CV. However, if we receive any details of specific incidents where blank CVs have been sent to employers, we would be happy to investigate."
MEDIA NEWS
The DWP is preparing the latest WP figures as Private Eye goes to press, so we cannot comment on how ministers will spin poor performance by "benefit'busting" contractors. But let's hope the BBC doesn't do their work for them this time.
Last November Nick Robinson, the BBC's political editor, reported the first WP figures - when every firm failed to meet minimum targets - on Radio 4s Today programme, telling listeners that while the numbers were bad, "one last brief point: the taxpayer is slightly better off because we don't pay benefits to people while these companies try to get them a job".
Robinson repeated the claim on his BBC blog and twitter - showing a confused understanding of government spin about "payment by results". In fact, taxpayers lose out all round, as claimants in the WP still get benefits and the firms themselves receive some payments eve when they don't find anyone a job. At a stroke, Robinson had made over £500m in government spending disappear.
The Eye and unemployed campaigners pointed out the error within minutes, and the BBC's political editor quickly corrected himself on his blog and Twitter. But no correction was issued to Radio 4s 7m Today listeners.
The Eye asked for an on-air correction. After a lengthy complaints procedure, the Beeb's editorial complaints unit this month upheld the complaint and declared Robinson's nonsense a "breach of editorial standards". But while there was a "good case for broadcasting a correction soon after the item", it considered that "the passage of time had rendered such action inappropriate" - so ignoring the principle that corrections should be made where the error first occurred.
Time only passed because Robinson, who was well aware of his howler, did not tell Today about his mistake. In a mild bollocking to him, the BBC said that "correspondents will be reminded that the relevant programme teams should be notified when an error is acknowledged or corrected.
News reaches the Eye that thanks to a computer cock-up, tens of thousands of jobseekers may have been firning off blank emails to prospective employers, instead of their CV's. No wonder they have not managed to secure any work.
Since March,benefit claimants with access to the internet are obliged to use the DWP online Universal Jobmatch - which is supposed to match jobseekers with suitable available jobs - or risk losing their jobseekers' allowance. The system, run by the US-based job adveriser Monitor under a £15m DWP contract, checks how active jobseekers are in pursuing work.
But some have recently been told by their JCP and employment agencies that if they opted to mark their online CV's "private" rather than "public", the system merely forwarded blank files, thwarting any chances of the unemployed landing a job.
One young Manchester arts graduate, who contacted the Eye after being told last week of the "error" on the direct gov websites, said he had applied for 572 jobs via the system and was furious to learn it had been a waste of time. He had ticked the "private" box, intending that hi CV should be viewed only by the employer he was applying to, rather than the public box, which he understood could be viewed by all job advertisers.
That he should be concerned about online security and identification theft is not surprising - not least as the Eye has already highlighted how lack of any effective policing of the DWP jobs site means dodgy employers, scammers and others ave been able to exploit the unemployed. Hundreds of jobs are advertised where agencies flout the minimum wage. Others are offering jobs that do not exist, are little sort of pyramid selling or could cost the jobseeker money.
A former postman also told the Eye that he made a similar decision to mark his CV private and was told by his employment service last week, without apology, that only blank emails ad been sent out on is behalf. e said he had made dozens of applications and had also been troubled because the system was flagging up "alerts" on his account, indicating he hadn't been "active" in his job search when he clearly had been.
The DWP said it was not aware of any problems with the system, insisting "There has been repeated testing of the CV function and in all tests the employer received a complete CV. However, if we receive any details of specific incidents where blank CVs have been sent to employers, we would be happy to investigate."
MEDIA NEWS
The DWP is preparing the latest WP figures as Private Eye goes to press, so we cannot comment on how ministers will spin poor performance by "benefit'busting" contractors. But let's hope the BBC doesn't do their work for them this time.
Last November Nick Robinson, the BBC's political editor, reported the first WP figures - when every firm failed to meet minimum targets - on Radio 4s Today programme, telling listeners that while the numbers were bad, "one last brief point: the taxpayer is slightly better off because we don't pay benefits to people while these companies try to get them a job".
Robinson repeated the claim on his BBC blog and twitter - showing a confused understanding of government spin about "payment by results". In fact, taxpayers lose out all round, as claimants in the WP still get benefits and the firms themselves receive some payments eve when they don't find anyone a job. At a stroke, Robinson had made over £500m in government spending disappear.
The Eye and unemployed campaigners pointed out the error within minutes, and the BBC's political editor quickly corrected himself on his blog and Twitter. But no correction was issued to Radio 4s 7m Today listeners.
The Eye asked for an on-air correction. After a lengthy complaints procedure, the Beeb's editorial complaints unit this month upheld the complaint and declared Robinson's nonsense a "breach of editorial standards". But while there was a "good case for broadcasting a correction soon after the item", it considered that "the passage of time had rendered such action inappropriate" - so ignoring the principle that corrections should be made where the error first occurred.
Time only passed because Robinson, who was well aware of his howler, did not tell Today about his mistake. In a mild bollocking to him, the BBC said that "correspondents will be reminded that the relevant programme teams should be notified when an error is acknowledged or corrected.
