The MSE Forum will be undergoing some maintenance this evening. As a result, some users may experience temporary performance issues. Please use the Site Feedback board to report anything major. Thank you for your patience.
Advise - Immediate Resignation prior to Disiplinary Investigation
Comments
-
It's not a case of don't like a job, it's a case of going to be fired and made unemployable by the bad reference or resign and be sanctioned by the job centre.
And you aren't supporting the op. The OP has presumably paid thousands in taxes so is entirely entitled to support from that tax in the event of a job loss.
I'd say I'd sooner hire someone dismissed than someone who resigned with no further employment.
The first could be a bad employee, bad manager, funding, any number of reasons.
The second is someone who doesn't think ahead.0 -
ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »So you mean this only applies in the case of people who have behaved so badly they are going to be fired. I am fine with that. Why shouldn't people who do that get bad references?
No, people are laid off due to factors such as poor performance, or inability to do the job. Some jobs just don't work out for a variety of reasons.It doesn't work like that. They don't lay aside everybody's taxes for their own personal use later. It costs quite a bit of money to keep the country going.
I'm not suggesting it's a savings account, the point is someone who has contributed to the system should be supported in hard times.I'd say I'd sooner hire someone dismissed than someone who resigned with no further employment.
The first could be a bad employee, bad manager, funding, any number of reasons.
The second is someone who doesn't think ahead.
Your personal opinion.
In the OP's case however it's potentially a reference saying fired due to gross misconduct vs a "good" reference.0 -
I'm not suggesting it's a savings account, the point is someone who has contributed to the system should be supported in hard times.
.
But that does not mean that those who place themselves in that situation, or fake their situation, should be supported. Rights and entitlements go along with responsibilities. Or they should. And too many people now seem to think that they have rights and entitlements, but no responsibilities.0 -
But actually, your second part of that sentence contradicts the first. People have "hard times" which they bring upon themselves. So whether they have contributed or not, that is their problem. Where someone has lost their job - or otherwise can't earn an income - they should be supported. And they should be supported an awful lot better than we currently do! Whether or not they might have paid taxes. The mark of a civilised society is how they treat their poor and disadvantaged. We aren't doing very well on that test.
But that does not mean that those who place themselves in that situation, or fake their situation, should be supported. Rights and entitlements go along with responsibilities. Or they should. And too many people now seem to think that they have rights and entitlements, but no responsibilities.
I completely agree that it shouldn't matter whether or not someone has paid into the system in a developed society, but in the face of an unsympathetic attitude I felt the need to put across the fact that the op has been paying taxes and is not some sponge on society undeserving of support.0 -
No, people are laid off due to factors such as poor performance, or inability to do the job. Some jobs just don't work out for a variety of reasons.
So you think that people who have done the job so badly that their reference makes them unemployable (your words) should be allowed to resign and claim benefits? They would still get a bad reference, so I don't see what point you are are trying to make. I suspect you don't, either.I'm not suggesting it's a savings account, the point is someone who has contributed to the system should be supported in hard times.
As should somebody who hasn't - but they are both being supported by society. Quite rightly so, but they are not just taking out what they put in.0 -
I completely agree that it shouldn't matter whether or not someone has paid into the system in a developed society, but in the face of an unsympathetic attitude I felt the need to put across the fact that the op has been paying taxes and is not some sponge on society undeserving of support.
No, your point was that people who have disciplinary proceedings hanging over them should be allowed to resign to dodge their bad reference without loss of benefits. Nobody is suggesting they shouldn't claim benefits if they are fired.0 -
ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »So you think that people who have done the job so badly that their reference makes them unemployable (your words) should be allowed to resign and claim benefits? They would still get a bad reference, so I don't see what point you are are trying to make. I suspect you don't, either.
Actually that's not what I said and there's no need to be rude. However...
Of course people should be allowed to resign instead of being fired. It is clearly not in the taxpayers interest to make people less employable!
If for example, someone becomes unable to perform (for whatever reason) so they amicably resign with an agreed reference instead of being fired for poor performance should they be sanctioned? Seriously? How does that help the taxpayer in the long run?ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »No, your point was that people who have disciplinary proceedings hanging over them should be allowed to resign to dodge their bad reference without loss of benefits. Nobody is suggesting they shouldn't claim benefits if they are fired.
Utter nonsense.0 -
I've got to admit, I've lost the plot of what you are trying to argue too.Actually that's not what I said and there's no need to be rude. However... Where was someone being rude to you? They were pointing out the inconsistency of your argument. And the tax payers have nothing whatsoever to do with someone being less employable, whatever you mean by that. But rightly or wrongly - in our opinion - the tax payers have said that they approve of a government which sanctions people for being unemployed at fault, and who claim benefits. It's called an election. And it was exactly what you said, and you have just said it again!
Of course people should be allowed to resign instead of being fired. It is clearly not in the taxpayers interest to make people less employable! And here's where you said it again. How does resigning make someone more employable? And that has no correlation to whether they should or should not be sanctioned. So if I decide I am fed up of my job and resign, I should be paid to sit at home because that's what I want to do? If your previous employer has dismissed you because you can't do the job, why is that different? Is it different if you stole the takings and resigned? Why? Your arguments are illogical. Of course they might be more employable if they resign and LIE, but that would have nothing to do with whether they should get benefits or not; although the next time they resign instead of being sacked it will likely be for the lie they told! .
If for example, someone becomes unable to perform (for whatever reason) so they amicably resign with an agreed reference instead of being fired for poor performance should they be sanctioned? Seriously? How does that help the taxpayer in the long run? Why should it make a difference. Being allowed to resign with an agreed reference had absolutely nothing to do with entitlement to benefit. You are being illogical. And you could argue that taxpayers are benefited when people know that leaving your job voluntarily or being dismissed and at fault will result in a sanction, so you had better have savings to live on. Not everyone who resigns or is dismissed is sanctioned. There are good reasons why these things might happen - and that is something taken account of in the decision process
Utter nonsense.0 -
Actually that's not what I said and there's no need to be rude. However...
That's exactly what you said. It's above, in black and white. You can't even follow your own argument, it seems.
If for example, someone becomes unable to perform (for whatever reason) so they amicably resign with an agreed reference instead of being fired for poor performance should they be sanctioned? Seriously? How does that help the taxpayer in the long run?ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »No, your point was that people who have disciplinary proceedings hanging over them should be allowed to resign to dodge their bad reference without loss of benefits. Nobody is suggesting they shouldn't claim benefits if they are fired.
Utter nonsense.
You have just stated something, then quoted me saying you said exactly that, then said "Utter nonsense". Extraordinary.0 -
I've got to admit, I've lost the plot of what you are trying to argue too.
I don't honestly understand what you are trying to argue here. Not everyone is a benefit basher if they don't support unfettered access to benefits at will. Which appears to be what underpins your arguments. There had to be a line in any system. The line here is that you will be sanctioned if you are at fault for the termination of your contact, however that is terminated. We can argue that the decision makers are misapplying the line in cases - I think they do - but that there should be no line? No, I don't think that is likely to ever get much support, and that isn't what I was saying.
How does resigning make someone more employable?
Because employers are far less likely to employ someone who was fired for poor performance than someone who resigned for "personal reasons".
The taxpayer benefits because they aren't stuck on JSA forever.
The problem with the whole sanction system is that the dwp are essentially taking the food off someones table for issues that an employer subjectively considered to be misconduct and decided on the mere balance of probability, that isn't acceptable.ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »
You have just stated something, then quoted me saying you said exactly that, then said "Utter nonsense". Extraordinary.
It is utter nonsense, you are trying to take a nuanced argument and turn it into a statement that doesn't reflect it as a whole.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 342.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.4K Spending & Discounts
- 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 172.8K Life & Family
- 247.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards