If there aren’t any DWP whistleblowers because they fear unemployment, what about these recently-sacked DWP workers?
On this very blog, only yesterday (August 22), people were saying it’s unlikely anybody at the DWP would blow the whistle on what happens there (including the deaths of claimants) because they fear unemployment. Now we see that nearly 4,000 DWP workers have been kicked out.
If any of these people have interesting items of information that their former ministerial masters would rather keep quiet, now’s the time to make them known.
The Department for Work and Pensions has been criticised for advertising nearly 3,000 jobs on short-term contracts less than two months after shedding thousands of permanent staff.
A total of 3,824 permanent staff members across England, Scotland and Wales left under a voluntary exit scheme in late June. On Thursday, the DWP said it was looking to recruit 2,800 people to work on its “reform programmes”.
Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services union, which represents public sector workers, said: “It is incredible that less than two months after cutting thousands of low-paid jobs, the DWP is advertising for close to the same amount.
“Instead of constantly trying to trip up claimants, the DWP should ensure the proper resources are in place to return the department to one where sick, disabled and unemployed people are given the support they need and deserve.”
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
Probably because if they’re now claiming JSA they probably don’t want to be suspected to be whistleblowers in case of sanctions, fraud allegations and other unpleasantness. Plus, who wants ‘whistleblower’ on a CV…?
You can’t be sanctioned for saying things the DWP doesn’t like.
aye. but you can be sanctioned for not coming to an appointment you didn’t know about. Happens all the time.
And that has nothing to do with whistleblowing. It’s a simple fact of life for claimants.
no, but they can pick on you for the slightest thing and single you out. So that they can discourage you by stealth.
They’d have no reason if you do your whistleblowing anonymously.
“Instead of constantly trying to trip up claimants, the DWP should ensure the proper resources are in place to return the department to one where sick, disabled and unemployed people are given the support they need and deserve.”
EXACTLY!
Precisely
Don’t hold your breath
One would think that one or more of those 3824 whom left under a voluntary exit scheme would be doing the right thing by coming out of the closet.
Unless thy were forced to sign a confidentiality agreement in order to fulfill the agreement and this is more likely, given the corrupt minister running the gaff. Protecting his jelly like spine.
Lets all keep fingers crossed and hope someone has some human decency to expose this criminal element purportedly running welfare for the less fortunate, we can only hope..
We await the fabricated statistics next week let us see the corruption on paper from an evil so called government.
I expect these ex-dwp employees had to sign official secrets act before they left
That would not make any difference.
Of course they weren’t.
Don’t believe a word of the so called vacancies, my daughter has just signed on for UC,(just graduated).
The first thing the jobcentre said to her was ” how about doing some experience at this jobcentre, you will not be paid but hey its great to have on your CV”.
So far she has side stepped the offer…………but they keep on pushing.
The DWP need the money to pay for the privatization, and the 300 million for the new IT contract.
Vampires.
Maybe it’s another NHS jobs roundabout and they come back as better paid contractors so unfortunately any potential super grass will be still looking out for their next job.
I understood that the jobs roundabout you mention has been closed for some time now.
First, browse anonymously:
https://www.torproject.org/download/download.html.en
Secure your email:
https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
Understand the issues:
http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Be_a_Whistle_Blower
See how the US do it:
http://www.whistleblowers.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1199&Itemid=124#top
Follow Snowden, contact Wikileaks and Glen Greewald:
http://glenngreenwald.net/
https://wikileaks.com/Press.html
What are you waiting for?
UK Whistleblower proxy:
https://www.whistleblowers.uk.com/
I do not think that phrases like “doing the right thing by coming out of the closet” and “hope someone has some human decency” are likely to elicit any informed insights from friends and former colleagues.
They have taken their severance packages; heaved, in many cases, a great sigh of relief and closed the door on many years of faithful public service. I suspect few, if any, will wish to re-open that door and certainly not to speak about what has happened since May 2010.
Ask us about our successes, Labour’s New Deals and the Future Jobs Fund by all means, but do not be surprised, if we do not wish to dwell on failure.
Even if it helps to save lives?
How would it do that? Retired DWP civil servants from outside of Whitehall will not have, in their personal possession, smoking gun e-mails for you to peruse and certainly not any containing information likely to be seen to be in breach of the Data Protection Act.
Senior officers retiring from positions closer to Ministers would again not have any damning documents to hand. Some might be willing to go on the record, but others might not do so, because of risks to plum retirement jobs and the damage it would do to the Civil Service.
Cameron and Osborne might welcome evidence of Civil Service partiality to justify moving towards a Thatcherite, is he one of us, system of permanent government. A system wherein which party you support becomes a key factor in determining appointments, promotions and the like.
I, personally, was involved with one case of suicide, but even anonymised it might provide information as to the individual’s identity. That individual’s right to privacy, even in death, trumps anyone’s right to know about their case.
However, I will say that back then, about four years ago, DWP had an internal review system in cases of client suicide mostly focused on the covering of backs. I had the rather unpleasant experience of listening to the then acting Jobcentre Plus Regional Director for the West Midlands telling me at length about his concerns for his own job resulting out of the paper review of the case. You may find it interesting to know that the results of the review were going to Jobcentre Plus senior management.
Incidentally, you may be interested to know that I and my colleague who had been trying to assist the person in question were not allowed to co-operate with a multi-agency review of the case. May be that aspect of DWP policy is worth exploring (with other stakeholders in such cases)?
I am not sure about that. No junior or middle ranking ex DWP Civil Servant will have in their possession a smoking gun memo or similar to share with you.
Ex senior DWP Civil Servants will not possess such documents either. They are unlikely to go public about any policy with which they were involved, because of concerns about possible future jobs and/or the impact on the future of the Civil Service.
It is a serious matter, asking Civil Servants to breach the confidential nature of their relationships with each other and Ministers. Cameron and Osborne do not need more evidence to support their policy of politicising the permanent government of the United Kingdom.
One would not wish to see the United States model of wholesale changes in the top levels of the civil service every time an administration changes.
I was involved with the case of a client suicide. I would not, out of respect for that individual’s privacy, even after death, expand upon that statement. One might try to anonymise the case, but even then one would run the risk of breaching the Data Protection Act.
However, DWP does have an internal review mechanism in the case of suicides that, in my case, focused on passing the buck down to the lowest level. I had a not very pleasant conversation with the then acting Regional Director for the West Midlands about the inquiry into my case. He was mostly concerned about how it would reflect on him and his future.
Incidentally, I and my colleague were instructed not to take part in a multi-agency review of the case. May be that is an angle to make enquiries about? How often has DWP declined to take part in such reviews?
I am not sure about that. No junior or middle ranking ex DWP Civil Servant will have in their possession a smoking gun memo or similar to share with you.
Ex senior DWP Civil Servants will not possess such documents either. They are unlikely to go public about any policy with which they were involved, because of concerns about possible future jobs and/or the impact on the future of the Civil Service.
It is a serious matter, asking Civil Servants to breach the confidential nature of their relationships with each other and Ministers. Cameron and Osborne do not need more evidence to support their policy of politicising the permanent government of the United Kingdom.
One would not wish to see the United States model of wholesale changes in the top levels of the civil service every time an administration changes.
I was involved with the case of a client suicide. I would not, out of respect for that individual’s privacy, even after death, expand upon that statement. One might try to anonymise the case, but even then one would run the risk of breaching the Data Protection Act.
However, DWP does have an internal review mechanism in the case of suicides that, in my case, focused on passing the buck down to the lowest level. I had a not very pleasant conversation with the then acting Regional Director for the West Midlands about the inquiry into my case. He was mostly concerned about how it would reflect on him and his future.
Incidentally, I and my colleague were instructed not to take part in a multi-agency review of the case. May be that is an angle to make enquiries about? How often has DWP declined to take part in such reviews?
I was reading this comment with an increasing sense of dismay, right up to that last paragraph. The impression you give is of an organisation that is far more preoccupied with safeguarding itself, rather than the general public. In that sense, it seems to me that a regular purge might actually help get it back to doing its job.
The issue of suicides is one that certainly concerns us all, here and now. The attitude of Tory ministers will be that these cannot be laid at their door because the people concerned were clearly not of sound mind etc (I’m sure we’ve all heard the mantras). However, people don’t – generally speaking – top themselves for no reason. They do it in response to a change in the conditions of their lives, such as a change in their benefit – or the threat of it. DWP – and the relevant ministers – will do everything they can to play down that connection.
Would questions about multi-agency reviews be able to dredge up information that could help in this regard – or provide better material?
A regular purge might suit some people, on the Left and the Right, but given that such an approach would further weaken service delivery then I beg to differ.
DWP, like most long lived bodies, has an institutional memory, a collective set of facts, concepts, experiences and know-how held by a group of people. As it transcends the individual, it requires the ongoing transmission of these memories between members of this group.
A purge would get in the way of that transmission, but that is what IDS has been doing with his severance packages. Without that institutional memory, who in DWP will soon know, for example, that there are (and have been) alternative ways of supporting people into work than the current compromised packages? I guess, though, if you think say that all work experience is workfare then perhaps a purge of that collective memory might have some appeal.
You raise the issue of suicides. Firstly, all sub groups of the general population commit suicide in varying degrees and social security beneficiaries are no different in that regard. They were committing suicide before May 2010.
I assume you are seeking to prove the contention that any increase in the annual, average number of suicides amongst social security beneficiaries since May 2010 is down to changes in the Social Security system?
That will be virtually impossible to prove, because people take their own lives for a variety of reasons and few do so for one single reason. At best you will be able to contend that there is some connection. Alas, that contention is unlikely to change the minds of Ministers or the general public.
The Daily Mail, whilst it has highlighted cases of suicides amongst ex forces people receiving ESA, puts those deaths down to how civil servants have implemented policy and studiously avoided any criticism of the policy itself. Even in death, some suicides are more equal than others.
Speaking for myself, I tried to commit suicide, because, in part, I had had one too many conversations about the results of Work Capability Assessments. The last one was with the mother of a young woman who had tried many times to take her life, each time after failing a WCA. Every time she appealed the decision, she won.
With suicides, what we’re really discussing is plausible deniability. Both you and the DWP would argue that the Department has plausible deniability of responsibility when it comes to suicides of claimants, for the reasons that you state. Against that deniability must be put the ever-increasing wealth of evidence to show that the DWP’s treatment of these people has something to do with it. For example: Instances where DWP behaviour is named as a reason for the death. For example: The fact that, at work capability assessments, people who admit having suicidal thoughts are directly asked why they have not killed themselves already. For example: Instances where no other reasonable explanation can be found for the suicide other than a change in the DWP’s treatment of the claimant. Maybe people do commit suicide for a variety of reasons but the main one is that they do not believe their life is worth living, and if the reasons for their quality of life dropping all come down to the way the DWP has dealt with them – and it would be very hard to argue to the contrary in many cases, I think – then all those little reasons coalesce into one big reason.
Also, of course, I wasn’t suggesting suicide is the only issue. There is the effect on the health of the very ill, caused by intentional harassment by the DWP – which is also demonstrable. There are other reasons. All will be strenuously denied by the DWP and its friends in the media.
That is not a reason to give up. It is a reason to persist.
No, it is a reason to box clever. Attacking your opponent at his strongest point may have a certain quixotic appeal, but I recommend a SWOT analysis.
Unless you are capable of trouncing DWP’s line of argument to the satisfaction of a disinterested observer then all your persistence will be for naught.
This is not the DWP’s strongest point, but one of its weakest.
For clarity, I’m not trying to say you agree with the DWP and what it’s doing; simply that you are putting forward its argument.
No, I am putting forward the line that will be used to discredit your assertions. It is normal practice to undertake such SWOT analyses to strengthen the presentation of a case or at least it was when I was setting out to persuade people to adopt a particular approach or policy.
As I see it, you are not, yet, in a position to deal with DWP’s line of argument in a way that will persuade disinterested observers to take your side. Unless you are capable of doing that then surely all your labours will be in vain?
Yes; you’re putting forward what the DWP’s argument will be.
The sticking-point, for those of us who want to challenge the DWP, is the fact that the DWP has the information we need, and is prepared to break the law in order to hide it.
I should apologise, by the way; some of your comments have been going into the spam file, unbeknownst to me.
Be brave, speak up and tell the truth, you’re not alone, we’ll stand by you!
No ex DWP worker should show any loyalty to them if they’ve blown them out, why should they, they’ve sacked them, any loyalties to them died when they let them go, blow the whistle, show up their former employers for the callous, evil minded b*****ds we all know they are!