Lied to Jobseekers

Jomo

donnajunkie wrote: »

the worthiness of the destination is not relevant.

Oh I think it is, your arguement falls flat you see because obviously the jobseeker would have to get to Calais in order to make that 'quick' trip that is more preferable than Northern Scotland!

Bogof_Babe

looby75 wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:my daughter went on the tall ships recently, they spent 3 and a half days sailing to scheveningen in Holland. They got there late Sunday afternoon and everything was closed lol

Same for us at Calais. It was a weekday but early closing day (how quaint that sounds nowadays). We couldn't even get a cup of coffee. Found an open hypermarket by the ferry port and wandered around there until our ferry came to take us back. At least it had loos, thank goodness!

Jomo

donnajunkie wrote: »

not really. just pointing out the obvious.

No, the obvious thing would be to sign off and enjoy the holiday!!

looby75

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

Same for us at Calais. It was a weekday but early closing day (how quaint that sounds nowadays). We couldn't even get a cup of coffee. Found an open hypermarket by the ferry port and wandered around there until our ferry came to take us back. At least it had loos, thank goodness!

DD ended up in a BP garage as it was the only place that was open......they found an (closed) aldi too lol

I joked with her that she was going on the world tour of supermarkets because at every port they went to they visited a different supermarket.

Newcastle - Tesco
Lieth - Asda
scheveningen - Aldi

She let the trip down when they got to London.....she just ended up in McDonnalds :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

skintandscared_2

donnajunkie wrote: »

the holiday could have been paid for and saved up for before they lost their job.
if you want to bring working people into it then ok lets do that. employed people usually get paid holidays. their employer has to pay them as normal and get no work in return. they also get more than 2 weeks a year. an employee who takes holidays is a bigger burden than an unemployed person who goes away.

Yes, it could have been. But the spending money and the money you will apparently need to buy new flights to get home and attend an interview won't have been paid in advance....

Yes, I get paid holidays which are my right by law. I earn those holidays but working my **** off for the other 47 weeks a year and doing unpaid overtime usually equivalent to one day per week. How dare you suggest that I'm a bigger burden than an unemployed person who wants to claim JSA fraudulently!! :mad: I have worked since the day I left college (that's 26 years so far) and have never claimed a penny for anything in my life. I prefer to pay my own way!!

donnajunkie

soothyerboots wrote: »

A bigger burden?!!!! :eek:

AN EMPLOYEE PAYS TAXES AND THEREFORE EARNS THEIR HOLIDAYS YOU STUPID MOO

i know but someone used a self employed person as their example and tried to make out that no-one gets paid for holidays. the reason i described an employed person taking paid holidays as more of a burden is because for that period away their employer is having to pay them their normal wage without getting any work from them that makes the money to pay the wage. so it is a kind of a burden that all employers have to take on. i am not saying it is wrong for employees to get paid for their holidays.

donnajunkie

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

But for the other 48 weeks of the year the employee is being extremely valuable to his employer and helping him generate profit, or in the case of public sector, helping keep the wheels of the system in motion.

Now, for the other 50 weeks of a JSA claimant's year, can the same be said? How is the taxpayer benefitting?

i could ask how is the taxpayer losing if someone goes away? having a rule that stops them going away wont save the taxpayer any money.

skintandscared_2

donnajunkie wrote: »

i know but someone used a self employed person as their example and tried to make out that no-one gets paid for holidays. the reason i described an employed person taking paid holidays as more of a burden is because for that period away their employer is having to pay them their normal wage without getting any work from them that makes the money to pay the wage. so it is a kind of a burden that all employers have to take on. i am not saying it is wrong for employees to get paid for their holidays.

Where did I say that NO-ONE gets paid for their holidays???! I said that my partner doesn't get paid for HIS holidays, so we save up enough to cover that shortfall. Just like people on JSA should do if THEY go on holiday!!!!! :mad:

Workers are entitled to holidays because they need a break. They don't sit around watching Jeremy Kyle all day every day....

donnajunkie

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

See posts #178 & #179.

they questioned how an unemployed person could afford it. i pointed out that it could have been paid for and saved up for before the person became unemployed. they then called me bonkers.

skintandscared_2

donnajunkie wrote: »

i could ask how is the taxpayer losing if someone goes away? having a rule that stops them going away wont save the taxpayer any money.

Are you not listening? Or just having trouble understanding? We DON'T CARE IF YOU GO AWAY!!! Just don't expect to be paid a benefit which is intended for those seeking work, while you are on HOLIDAY!