Lied to Jobseekers

Bogof_Babe

SpikyHedgehog wrote: »

Someone already posted in the thread saying she is job searching in her local area and in Scotland with a view to relocating there if that's where the job comes up. So I don't think it would work to say 2 hours travel time of registered office, as people do look at other areas - potentially you could come back from holiday with a job from the other area.

Well "potentially" you could come back from Timbuktu with a job, but if your local DWP office phoned you for an interview in Little Snodbury and you couldn't make it you'd still lose your JSA!

looby75

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

Well "potentially" you could come back from Timbuktu with a job, but if your local DWP office phoned you for an interview in Little Snodbury and you couldn't make it you'd still lose your JSA!

and thats another reason the system is so restrictive and inflexible in modern day times that it needs to be changed. The gov says people who are looking for work need to be flexible and consider moving to other areas etc, yet from what I've read here and have looked into myself since earlier today, doesn't let you do that without informing xyz first.

FWIW I don't think that if you are on holiday abroad you should be able to claim JSA. I do think that the biggest reason people go away and don't tell anyone is simply because of the amount of red tape and other benefit problems (mainly HB and CTB) a break in benefits causes.

anyway I'm bowing out of this thread (for now, no doubt it will turn up in DT soon lol)

Bogof_Babe

Problem with that is, what's to stop someone swanning off to some exotic location for a few months claiming they are "job seeking"? Few months becomes couple of years, and they are still picking up their Giro from the local branch of Bank of Bermuda.

Meanwhile DWP can't get hold of them as they are not on the phone and their mobile does not accept overseas calls.

You have to have rules or those who abuse priviledges will be first on the plane or boat rubbing their factor 30 on as they leave.

looby75

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

Problem with that is, what's to stop someone swanning off to some exotic location for a few months claiming they are "job seeking"? Few months becomes couple of years, and they are still picking up their Giro from the local branch of Bank of Bermuda.

Meanwhile DWP can't get hold of them as they are not on the phone and their mobile does not accept overseas calls.

You have to have rules or those who abuse priviledges will be first on the plane or boat rubbing their factor 30 on as they leave.

well the easy answer to that is if someone is uncontactable for x amount of time (every 2 weeks say unless they have prior "permission" )via mail and/ or phone then their JSA stops until they turn up in person to their registered JC with a valid explanation and proof of where they had been jobseeking.

I'm not saying there should be no restrictions just that they need to be a bit more flexible than they are now in regards to moving around the country and red-tape etc

Anubis_2

donnajunkie wrote: »

no you misunderstand. i am talking specifically about the period of the holiday. an employed person is getting full wages and earning no profit for the employer in return during that time. i am not saying employees shouldnt get paid holidays. someone suggested becaase their husband doesnt get paid holidays that no-one else should either. my whole position here is defending a persons right to have holidays employed or not and criticising rules that say otherwise.

Your post didn't seem that way so was very easily misunderstood by many on here.

No one is saying that the unemployed are not entitled to holidays.

What they are saying is IF you choose to go abroad, then don't expect to be paid JSA (which would likely be used for spending money.) and follow the JSA rules by signing off, then making a rapid reclaim upon return.

It's not rocket science.

soothyerboots

donnajunkie wrote: »

ok correction you cant have your income and go abroad. that is what people are saying.
now why is that? the first reason given is you cant do jobsearch. me and others have shown that is incorrect.
you cant get back for an interview. the liklihood of an interview clashing is very small and me and other people have shown it can be easier to get back from some locations abroad.
the next one is its the rules. well its been shown its a bo**cks rule and it can easily be got around.

Well at the end of the day, if you are "getting around the rule", then you are a fraudster and a thief, and I hope you get punished.

Wastrel.

donnajunkie

flanflanflan wrote: »

You are assuming that everyone lives or will be staying near an airport or a sea port. The chances of living near a train or bus station are far higher. If you are holidaying two hours from Dublin and live two hours from Liverpool, that's four hours to your seemingly short journey. If you are somewhere relatively remote in the UK, chances are you are still pretty close to public transport and so can start your journey home immediately.

yes if you were somewhere a few hours way from the airport etc then yeah it would also be a long journey. that does not change the fact that there are many places abroad were it is easier to get back from. the rule is stupidly assuming all uk locations can be got back home from very quickly and that all locations abroad will take all day. actually i think they realise this and i think the only reason the rule exists is to stop the middle classes kicking off at the idea of unemployed people being able to go abroad.

donnajunkie

flanflanflan wrote: »

But you suggest that they will be doing no more when they are at home than when they are away. No one is expecting them to jobseek 24 hours a day, but are you seriously suggesting that if they do e.g. four hours jobseeking at home they'll still be doing that whilst overseas? Or are you suggesting (as your post implies) that they'll be doing nothing at home, as they would be on holiday?

of course when people are away they arent likely to do jobsearch. however part of why the rule exists is because it is assuming being abroad means people cant do jobsearch. that is clearly not true. if someone goes away for 2 weeks and doesnt do any jobsearch then technically they are breaking their agreement(assuming the agreement allowed people to go abroad of course). however many people do nothing for a whole 2 weeks while at home. so it isnt an argument for keeping people at home.

donnajunkie

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

How much is a week's JSA? £65? Yet you think people who couldn't afford to lose that would still go abroad on holiday and, even if "all inclusive", be highly likely to spend at least five times that on all the paraphernalia that being away from home involves. Trips, tips, car hire, souvenirs, drinks & meals away from the holiday complex, watersports, donkey rides... you get the picture.

If I was suddenly out of work and had enough spending money to cover a week's holiday abroad, I doubt I'd become destitute for the lack of £65. And if I would, then I'd scrap the holiday and hang onto my JSA plus what money I would have spent being away. Seemples.

there are a number of ways the holiday can be afforded and still not mean they can afford to lose jsa. however thats not the real point here. the point is should people be allowed a break.

Jomo

donnajunkie wrote: »

yes if you were somewhere a few hours way from the airport etc then yeah it would also be a long journey. that does not change the fact that there are many places abroad were it is easier to get back from. the rule is stupidly assuming all uk locations can be got back home from very quickly and that all locations abroad will take all day. actually i think they realise this and i think the only reason the rule exists is to stop the middle classes kicking off at the idea of unemployed people being able to go abroad.

Your stupidity is astounding....

It really is.