Advise - Immediate Resignation prior to Disiplinary Investigation
Comments
-
To be fair, reporting the assault (which is what it was) would prevent any sanctionsdeannatrois wrote: »Years ago, I walked out of a job because some of the men thought it funny to carry me across the floor inspite of me saying 'no' and being terrified (wasn't a good employer, they had hung another female out of a second story window by the feet, seriously). I went to a job centre and they said I wouldn't be able to claim benefits for six months as I'd left the employer. Why I'd left didn't matter a jot. Had only worked there for 6 months.
I tried to get some agency work got some in the short term and then couldn't get any more (no jobs available). Applied for JSA again and was accepted, as their investigations were based solely on the last place of work. It was only a few weeks later.
Not sure if things have changed since, but it shows you can get JSA in certain circumstances.0 -
That isn't what you said though. You said that they could claim that they resigned for personal reasons. 100% of the truth is that they resigned before they were dismissed. And the same applies to the employers reference.
It's not the case that people are always about to be immediately dismissed in such circumstances, people see it's not working out and choose to amicably leave before it gets to that point.
However we have a fundamental difference of opinion in what constitutes lying, you seem to hold the opinion that a candidate is under some sort of moral obligation to divulge every detail surrounding the circumstances of why they left a job, and list all their shortcomings to a potential employer. I don't hold that opinion and believe it's perfectly acceptable just to say it didn't work out.The "financial penalty" is not applied "because the employer says they did something bad". Plenty of our members are in exactly that situation and do not get sanctioned. The regulations say that you will get sanctioned if you had no good reason to resign, or if the resignation or dismissal was brought about through your own fault. It's not all on the say so of an employer.
Whilst I am not happy with the way that the benefits system operates, the principle that everyone should work if they are able to is sound. If they are able to afford not to work, then that is their choice, but that choice should not extend to affording not to work in someone else's purse. If there are no consequences at all for not working, then a great deal many more people wouldn't work. That doesn't mean that the system is the best system we could have. But equally, it doesn't mean that a better system would not sanction people.
There are checks in place, and even people who are sanctioned are able to claim some money for food. But if there was no hardship involved, there is also no incentive to avoid sanctions. Any society that intends to thrive needs some checks and balances. You may argue about what these are, but suggesting that there should be none is a recipe for economic disaster.
I fundamentally disagree with that assertion. Despite what the daily mail would have you believe, most people don't choose to be on benefits, people choose to work because they want a good bit of money and to be independent. The idea that we would have an economic disaster with swathes of people dropping their £20k jobs to live on £3,800 JSA if we removed the patronising sanction system is simply not credible.But no-one is stopping the person finding alternative work.....
The only way that 'food gets taken off the table' is if the person makes that decision themselves.
It's very fanciful to believe that they could immediately find a new job.
Economically speaking it's essentially impossible to have 100% employment, so there will inevitably be some people unemployed.ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »You'll note I pointed out that even if we do, it doesn't change the situation. How is it not in the interests of the tax payer when the person with the bad reference is only going to get a job that somebody would have got anyway? The total number of people on benefits remains the same.
That job could remain unfilled for who knows how long.Your whole argument is predicated on the fact that employers routinely fire people for bad reasons - and now you say you don't even believe that is the case?
No it isn't, that's a logical fallacy. I'm saying it happens often enough to present a problem, not that's it's routine.0 -
It's very fanciful to believe that they could immediately find a new job.
Economically speaking it's essentially impossible to have 100% employment, so there will inevitably be some people unemployed.
Followed immediately by...That job could remain unfilled for who knows how long.
Surely even you can see you are absolutely all over the place.No it isn't, that's a logical fallacy. I'm saying it happens often enough to present a problem, not that's it's routine.
Oh you have an opinion now? A couple of posts ago you said you "had no opinion either way" on this. Still, that's the least of your self-contradictions.
How often do you think people get fired for no good reason? It would have to be very significant in order to justify changing the benefits system just to let such people resign without being fired, wouldn't it? What grounds do you have to believe that it is so significant, and would it not be better to improve employment rights and tribunals so they had some comeback, rather than muck about with benefits just to let people resign without being fired?0 -
You know what? I've never read the Daily Mail, and I think the Morning Star is a bit right wing. No argument so you resort to name calling. But this is entirely boring. You don't know what you are talking about. No economic system can support people who don't want to work, no matter what you call it. The answer is get a job. Any job if you must.It's not the case that people are always about to be immediately dismissed in such circumstances, people see it's not working out and choose to amicably leave before it gets to that point.
However we have a fundamental difference of opinion in what constitutes lying, you seem to hold the opinion that a candidate is under some sort of moral obligation to divulge every detail surrounding the circumstances of why they left a job, and list all their shortcomings to a potential employer. I don't hold that opinion and believe it's perfectly acceptable just to say it didn't work out.
I fundamentally disagree with that assertion. Despite what the daily mail would have you believe, most people don't choose to be on benefits, people choose to work because they want a good bit of money and to be independent. The idea that we would have an economic disaster with swathes of people dropping their £20k jobs to live on £3,800 JSA if we removed the patronising sanction system is simply not credible.
It's very fanciful to believe that they could immediately find a new job.
Economically speaking it's essentially impossible to have 100% employment, so there will inevitably be some people unemployed.
That job could remain unfilled for who knows how long.
No it isn't, that's a logical fallacy. I'm saying it happens often enough to present a problem, not that's it's routine.
BTW - full employment is perfectly possible. You need to retake that economics course.
I'm out.0 -
Ok, you can't refute what I've said, fair enough.
Like I said though, it's called a negative income tax, something proposed by nobel prize winning economists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_taxScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »Followed immediately by...
Surely even you can see you are absolutely all over the place.
It's perfectly consistent, if there is a job in London and the person qualified to do it lives in Glasgow for example it's not going to be possible for them to fill it.Oh you have an opinion now? A couple of posts ago you said you "had no opinion either way" on this. Still, that's the least of your self-contradictions.
How often do you think people get fired for no good reason? It would have to be very significant in order to justify changing the benefits system just to let such people resign without being fired, wouldn't it? What grounds do you have to believe that it is so significant, and would it not be better to improve employment rights and tribunals so they had some comeback, rather than muck about with benefits just to let people resign without being fired?
It's not a contradiction to develop an opinion on something.
Last year there were 88,476 tribunal cases of which around half were successful.
That is pretty significant and for me more than enough reason to reform the absurd sanctions system.0 -
It's not a contradiction to develop an opinion on something.
Oh you "developed an opinion" in between those two posts. I see.Last year there were 88,476 tribunal cases of which around half were successful.
That is pretty significant and for me more than enough reason to reform the absurd sanctions system.
How many of those people would have been helped by being able to resign before being sacked and claiming benefits? How many wanted to resign before being sacked and claim benefits? You don't seem at all able to stick to the point.
I can only reiterate what sangie said really. You don't know what you are talking about. I'm out as well.0 -
ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »How many of those people would have been helped by being able to resign before being sacked and claiming benefits? How many wanted to resign before being sacked and claim benefits? You don't seem at all able to stick to the point.
I can only reiterate what sangie said really. You don't know what you are talking about. I'm out as well.
It doesn't matter whether they would have resigned or not, they would still be sanctioned for misconduct.
I think it's best you two are out as you don't seem to be able to grasp simple concepts.0 -
It doesn't matter whether they would have resigned or not, they would still be sanctioned for misconduct.
I think it's best you two are out as you don't seem to be able to grasp simple concepts.
Well I would be out if you didn't keep misstating and misrepresenting both your own and other people's arguments.
That's a completely different question then isn't it? Can you honestly not follow anything?? You came in here claiming that people should be allowed to resign and claim benefits in order to avoid bad references, and that's what people took issue with. The question of people being able to claim benefits when sacked hasn't been raised until now, and is entirely separate! It's not even something I disagree with!
Give me strength.0 -
It doesn't matter whether they would have resigned or not, they would still be sanctioned for misconduct.
I think it's best you two are out as you don't seem to be able to grasp simple concepts.
Ok, so why should the taxpayer support someone who either:
Walks out of a job
OR
Is sacked for misconduct
?
In both cases the person has deliberately given up an income0 -
Ok, so why should the taxpayer support someone who either:
Walks out of a job
OR
Is sacked for misconduct
?
In both cases the person has deliberately given up an income
For a multitude of reasons, firstly we are a civilized society where we shouldn't let people starve and go homeless because of one bad incident at work, secondly because that same person has been supporting everyone else by paying taxes, and thirdly because misconduct is whatever the employer decides it is and decides it on a balance of probabilities which means that entirely innocent people fall victim to the sanction system.
Plus many economists have predicted that a universal benefit with no qualifiers like a negative income tax is actually cheaper than our system of having job centres and restricting benefits with sanctions and employing tens of thousands of people to check up on peoples work searches etc.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards