Sanctioning The Unemployed
Discussion
f
k up with your job hunting and the Job Centre will stop your benefits for a month. I initially thought this to be a good idea till I learned of three people I know who have been sanctioned.
First was a lab assistant with a hospital who was made redundant when the hospital she worked in closed. Sanctioned a months benefits for being three minutes late for a job-club (1st offence)
Second. A very senior director in her 50s who has struggled hard to find work after being let go. She was interviewed for a very menial position she was sent to by the job centre. The interview went well till she was asked considering her qualifications and employment history how long would her prospective employer be able to hold on to her should she be offered the sort of position she was more used to. She smiled and answered "how long is your notice period?". She was sanctioned for deliberately messing up the interview.
Finally a girl who lost her job on health grounds was sanctioned for not properly notifying the Job Centre she was unable to attend a job finding activity due to ill health. She had suffered a severe bronchial condition which progressed to full on pneumonia requiring hospitalisation. After presenting medical records proving how ill she was the JC stated this can not be done retrospectively and her offence was not being ill but a failure to provide prompt notification of her inability to work,
k up with your job hunting and the Job Centre will stop your benefits for a month. I initially thought this to be a good idea till I learned of three people I know who have been sanctioned. First was a lab assistant with a hospital who was made redundant when the hospital she worked in closed. Sanctioned a months benefits for being three minutes late for a job-club (1st offence)
Second. A very senior director in her 50s who has struggled hard to find work after being let go. She was interviewed for a very menial position she was sent to by the job centre. The interview went well till she was asked considering her qualifications and employment history how long would her prospective employer be able to hold on to her should she be offered the sort of position she was more used to. She smiled and answered "how long is your notice period?". She was sanctioned for deliberately messing up the interview.
Finally a girl who lost her job on health grounds was sanctioned for not properly notifying the Job Centre she was unable to attend a job finding activity due to ill health. She had suffered a severe bronchial condition which progressed to full on pneumonia requiring hospitalisation. After presenting medical records proving how ill she was the JC stated this can not be done retrospectively and her offence was not being ill but a failure to provide prompt notification of her inability to work,
Edited by Tannedbaldhead on Wednesday 6th November 19:58
I am not defending inappropriate or improperly used authority. However there has been a gradual acceptance of unemployment as an alternative lifestyle available by choice supported by excessively easily accessed benefit income in the UK over the last 50 years and it cannot continue. It is hard to get to work every day as many know. It is easier for some to regard benefits as the soft option and therefore to ensure that they fail in their job seeking. The intention is to make benefits a far more difficult route to follow to ensure only a minority remain on benefits. It is a painful process and in the end few people will want to be out of work. Which is as it should be. Society cannot offer pain free effort free living and this is the result. I think the complaints are reality dawning. The illusion of free lifestyles for all is fading away in the UK.
dudleybloke said:
the long term spongers know the system backwards so they will get crisis loans and hardship payments whereas people not used to playing the system dont know the "tricks of the trade" and end up suffering.
Apparently the Job Centres are set targets with staff having to sanction a set amount of claimants every week. If the fail to hit these targets they are threatened with finding themselves on the other side of the counter. Their favourite targets are the newly unemployed and claimants with learning difficulties and poor English.Steffan said:
I am not defending inappropriate or improperly used authority. However there has been a gradual acceptance of unemployment as an alternative lifestyle available by choice supported by excessively easily accessed benefit income in the UK over the last 50 years and it cannot continue. It is hard to get to work every day as many know. It is easier for some to regard benefits as the soft option and therefore to ensure that they fail in their job seeking. The intention is to make benefits a far more difficult route to follow to ensure only a minority remain on benefits. It is a painful process and in the end few people will want to be out of work. Which is as it should be. Society cannot offer pain free effort free living and this is the result. I think the complaints are reality dawning. The illusion of free lifestyles for all is fading away in the UK.
That is as maybe & is a perfect politician's answer; it is however of little comfort to the three people mentioned who have been unfairly & royally fked.im not suprised about the targets in the job centres.
they wouldnt try it with career doleites as they know their "uman rights".
its the recently unemployed who need a softer touch, specialy if its the first time they've had to sign on.
its a totaly different world if your used to working for a living.
they wouldnt try it with career doleites as they know their "uman rights".
its the recently unemployed who need a softer touch, specialy if its the first time they've had to sign on.
its a totaly different world if your used to working for a living.
Tannedbaldhead said:
Apparently the Job Centres are set targets with staff having to sanction a set amount of claimants every week. If the fail to hit these targets they are threatened with finding themselves on the other side of the counter. Their favourite targets are the newly unemployed and claimants with learning difficulties and poor English.
Apparently people with bald heads are particularly picked upon in the targets, too.*- I haven't got any basis for my assertion either.
maddog993 said:
Steffan said:
I am not defending inappropriate or improperly used authority. However there has been a gradual acceptance of unemployment as an alternative lifestyle available by choice supported by excessively easily accessed benefit income in the UK over the last 50 years and it cannot continue. It is hard to get to work every day as many know. It is easier for some to regard benefits as the soft option and therefore to ensure that they fail in their job seeking. The intention is to make benefits a far more difficult route to follow to ensure only a minority remain on benefits. It is a painful process and in the end few people will want to be out of work. Which is as it should be. Society cannot offer pain free effort free living and this is the result. I think the complaints are reality dawning. The illusion of free lifestyles for all is fading away in the UK.
That is as maybe & is a perfect politician's answer; it is however of little comfort to the three people mentioned who have been unfairly & royally fked.2nd took the P in a job interview. If she wanted the job she would not have replied in the way that she did.
3rd I have more sympathy for. However the one time I had a few months of JSA I found out that it starts when you let them know you're unemployed, not when you became unemployed. Annoying, but it's just the way it is and I didn't complain about it.
dudleybloke said:
im not suprised about the targets in the job centres.
they wouldnt try it with career doleites as they know their "uman rights".
its the recently unemployed who need a softer touch, specialy if its the first time they've had to sign on.
its a totaly different world if your used to working for a living.
I agree those used to ducking and diving around the benefits culture are better informed. Benefits are far too complex to be easily administered or understood. That is the fault of successive governments. We need a simpler but sadly less equitable system which reduces the current benefits available from 32 (yes 32) to perhaps two or three to cover every case. We cannot administer a system effectively where the needs of each individual are considered. Simplification is essential. Benefits cannot be a long term option and every employable individual has to realise that. There are difficult economic choices coming and the benefits culture has to be massively reduced in the UK. Making a living is damned hard work and being on benefits cannot insulate you from that requirement. Reality beckons. We all have to earn our living.they wouldnt try it with career doleites as they know their "uman rights".
its the recently unemployed who need a softer touch, specialy if its the first time they've had to sign on.
its a totaly different world if your used to working for a living.
Esseesse said:
maddog993 said:
Steffan said:
I am not defending inappropriate or improperly used authority. However there has been a gradual acceptance of unemployment as an alternative lifestyle available by choice supported by excessively easily accessed benefit income in the UK over the last 50 years and it cannot continue. It is hard to get to work every day as many know. It is easier for some to regard benefits as the soft option and therefore to ensure that they fail in their job seeking. The intention is to make benefits a far more difficult route to follow to ensure only a minority remain on benefits. It is a painful process and in the end few people will want to be out of work. Which is as it should be. Society cannot offer pain free effort free living and this is the result. I think the complaints are reality dawning. The illusion of free lifestyles for all is fading away in the UK.
That is as maybe & is a perfect politician's answer; it is however of little comfort to the three people mentioned who have been unfairly & royally fked.2nd took the P in a job interview. If she wanted the job she would not have replied in the way that she did.
3rd I have more sympathy for. However the one time I had a few months of JSA I found out that it starts when you let them know you're unemployed, not when you became unemployed. Annoying, but it's just the way it is and I didn't complain about it.
2nd Not sure. They were honest...., but then sanctioned for it.
Esseesse said:
2nd took the P in a job interview. If she wanted the job she would not have replied in the way that she did.
Did she take the piss? Prospective employer noticed she was an HR Director earning in excess of £50kpa when working and who was educated to graduate level with further post-grad and professional qualifications. He asked a question with regards to whether she would stick at the position (minimum wage) which she answered honestly and politely. Should she have lied? Tannedbaldhead said:
Esseesse said:
2nd took the P in a job interview. If she wanted the job she would not have replied in the way that she did.
Did she take the piss? Prospective employer noticed she was an HR Director earning in excess of £50kpa when working and who was educated to graduate level with further post-grad and professional qualifications. He asked a question with regards to whether she would stick at the position (minimum wage) which she answered honestly and politely. Should she have lied? If you want a job then I suppose you'd normally give some kind of politicians answer to that kind of question...
surveyor said:
How easy is it to be 3 minutes late? I once missed a train by 30 minutes as some sod had decided to block one lane of the busiest road into town at rush hour. You can't plan for that, Ask them to make up the 3 minutes FFS.
2nd Not sure. They were honest...., but then sanctioned for it.
I agree it's not hard to be 3 minutes late for things. I often am, but then they're for things I know that 3 minutes doesn't matter about. If I were 3 minutes late for work and they told me that if I was again I would lose my job then I wouldn't be late again. I've never been late for a job interview.2nd Not sure. They were honest...., but then sanctioned for it.
Esseesse said:
Not really. 1st one was late. Yes it was only slightly but if they're the rules they're the rules. She won't be late again.
2nd took the P in a job interview. If she wanted the job she would not have replied in the way that she did.
3rd I have more sympathy for. However the one time I had a few months of JSA I found out that it starts when you let them know you're unemployed, not when you became unemployed. Annoying, but it's just the way it is and I didn't complain about it.
Really?2nd took the P in a job interview. If she wanted the job she would not have replied in the way that she did.
3rd I have more sympathy for. However the one time I had a few months of JSA I found out that it starts when you let them know you're unemployed, not when you became unemployed. Annoying, but it's just the way it is and I didn't complain about it.
1)So you're saying someone is THREE minutes late & you would adopt a 'f
k you' attitude regardless, happy in the knowledge of what damage you have just caused them by adopting such an attitude?2) How was the 2nd taking the piss? Is she supposed to supplicate to snivelling, brown-nose sycophancy rather than being entirely honest?
3) If you've got bronchopneumonia & you're hospitalised, informing the Job Centre is not going to be foremost in your mind
maddog993 said:
Steffan said:
I am not defending inappropriate or improperly used authority. However there has been a gradual acceptance of unemployment as an alternative lifestyle available by choice supported by excessively easily accessed benefit income in the UK over the last 50 years and it cannot continue. It is hard to get to work every day as many know. It is easier for some to regard benefits as the soft option and therefore to ensure that they fail in their job seeking. The intention is to make benefits a far more difficult route to follow to ensure only a minority remain on benefits. It is a painful process and in the end few people will want to be out of work. Which is as it should be. Society cannot offer pain free effort free living and this is the result. I think the complaints are reality dawning. The illusion of free lifestyles for all is fading away in the UK.
That is as maybe & is a perfect politician's answer; it is however of little comfort to the three people mentioned who have been unfairly & royally fked.ked by the long term scroungers?For any rule in existence, you'll be able to find people who've been hard done by as a result of its implementation, but the alternative is to just let the scroungers keep on scrounging.
maddog993 said:
Really?
1)So you're saying someone is THREE minutes late & you would adopt a 'fk you' attitude regardless, happy in the knowledge of what damage you have just caused them by adopting such an attitude?
2) How was the 2nd taking the piss? Is she supposed to supplicate to snivelling, brown-nose sycophancy rather than being entirely honest?
3) If you've got bronchopneumonia & you're hospitalised, informing the Job Centre is not going to be foremost in your mind
It's harsh, but it's like being done for doing 72mph. OTT but you know what you've got to do to not get done again.1)So you're saying someone is THREE minutes late & you would adopt a 'f
k you' attitude regardless, happy in the knowledge of what damage you have just caused them by adopting such an attitude?2) How was the 2nd taking the piss? Is she supposed to supplicate to snivelling, brown-nose sycophancy rather than being entirely honest?
3) If you've got bronchopneumonia & you're hospitalised, informing the Job Centre is not going to be foremost in your mind
If you start trying to determine how late is too late, where do you draw the line?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff