JSA Sanctions - Beer Money for Claimant Advisers?

sammyjammy

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

You didn't realise that many people work longer than a 7 hour day (9 to 5 with an hour for lunch)?

The only people I know who finish work by 5, are state workers.

Really?

Anyone taking an hour for lunch and working 9-5 in Jobcentre Plus will have a whole heap of problems as they will be working 24 minutes every day less than they are contractually required to. Do that for a month and they "owe" over 10 hours to the Dept give or take, anything more than that they'll be under a warning and will probably lose their annual leave to make up the deficit.

I have many friends who work for Barclays bank, guess what hours they work? Yes you've got it 9-5 with an hour for lunch. That's a 35 hour week for those not contracted to work Saturdays a whole 2 hours less than civil servants.

MissMoneypenny

anguk wrote: »

That's interesting. I'd be curious to see how welfare money is spent, the sick and unemployed always seem to be the ones who are bashed but I suspect they probably get the least amount of money spent on them.

I can't find the link now, but it was posted on these forums a while ago and the sick and unemployed, were much further down the welfare cost, list.

I suppose the sick and unemployed may also get help with their housing costs, but those with children will get more spent on them because of the extra rooms they are allowed (depending on the area of course). When you also consider that the sick and old will need more healthcare and children need education, then it's the jobless, child free JSA claimant, that cost the welfare state the least. £65 cash payment per week JSA, never strikes me as a livable payment. I couldn't survive on that.

Interestingly, it seems the Dutch government have gone further than our government with housing welfare cuts and have now given a flat rate for the whole country; so no more deciding to move to an expensive area and get it funded by the taxpayer.

Elvisia

Having read this thread it does make me wonder if this was why I ended up being pulled into a compliance meeting; I always dressed well to go to the JC as I treated it as my workplace I had to visit every two weeks, and I wanted to make sure I looked OK in case they sent me off for an interview or something (ho ho ho that never happened but I was told it could). Also because I signed on at 9am I'd go off and get the train up to London and try to meet potential employers afterwards (which I organised myself and was far more successful). So I wore the nice clothes I bought when I was employed, then got hauled in for a meeting asking how many savings I had. I did wonder whether my over enthusiasm to look half decent was noted down somewhere, I got a variety of different answers when I asked why I had been called in. It did amuse me when people turned up in their pyjamas with a coat over the top, who would want to sleep in clothes that had been in the JC?

Sixer

anguk wrote: »

That's interesting. I'd be curious to see how welfare money is spent, the sick and unemployed always seem to be the ones who are bashed but I suspect they probably get the least amount of money spent on them.

http://m.ippr.org/articles/56/8893/budget-2012-breaking-down-the-benefits-bill

There you go.

For those who can't be ar5ed to click:

State pension - 36% of welfare bill
Housing benefit/LHA - 11%
Child tax credit - 10%
DLA - 8%
Other pensioner benefits - 6%
Child benefit - 6%
Working tax credit - 4%
ESA - 4%
Income support - 4%
JSA - 3%
Council tax benefit -3%
Carer's allowance and maternity pay - 2%

seven-day-weekend

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

We 'text' now.

Make contact in an acceptable manner is what I meant!

shedboy94

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

You didn't realise that many people work longer than a 7 hour day (9 to 5 with an hour for lunch)?

The only people I know who finish work by 5, are state workers.

Strange, my wife works for BT and works 8-4.30...........

I personally work 8-4 with a 30 min lunch 4 days a week, 11:30-8 1 day a week, and rotational weekends.

Please don't tar everyone with the same brush unless you have evidence to the contrary

shedboy94

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

You work short days; departments are over staffed; you get a better pension than a private worker (funded by the taxpayer); you don't have to do a good job as the taxpayer always pays your salary; it's hard to sack a state worker, no matter how bad they are at their job; even if you can get rid of them for their very bad work record, they get pensioned off with a enhanced, taxpayer funded, early pension. Yet you still think it is the civil servants who the ones that are getting "shafted"!?

Presumably you have some sort of underlying problem..........but anyway...
1. What do you class as a short day? I work 8 hpd, with a 30min lunch, so I am paid for 37.5 hpw....it used to be 42hpw, but had to reduce my hrs (and pay) for personal reasons
2. Departments are not overstaffed, they are in fact understaffed......but despite this, massive cuts are made every year. Just speaking through personal experience, if we were overstaffed, calls to the Taxes and Tax Credit helpline would be answered straightaway, and claims would be processed immediately. If there were enough staff then there wouldn't be billions of uncollected Tax, there also wouldn't be as much lost to benefit fraud as there is.....but there isn't enough staff to check the claims.
3. Better pension than SOME of the private sector.
4. It is personal chice to work in the public sector - I chose to get a job in it 10 years ago, you obviously didn't.
5. Why do you refer to "taxpayers".....I must speak to my own tax office as apparently as part of the public sector I shouldn't be paying tax....only the private sector do......according to you.
6. I don't have to do a good job.....but I do. If I didn't then I assure you I would be sacked - again the reference to "taxpayers".........

If you aren't happy in your own job, then get a job in the public sector - apparently we aren't taxpayers, work short days, get paid loads, get a gold-plated pension, and can't get sacked.......sounds like the best job in the world!

anguk

Sixer wrote: »

http://m.ippr.org/articles/56/8893/budget-2012-breaking-down-the-benefits-bill

There you go.

For those who can't be ar5ed to click:

State pension - 36% of welfare bill
Housing benefit/LHA - 11%
Child tax credit - 10%
DLA - 8%
Other pensioner benefits - 6%
Child benefit - 6%
Working tax credit - 4%
ESA - 4%
Income support - 4%
JSA - 3%
Council tax benefit -3%
Carer's allowance and maternity pay - 2%

Goodness, that's quite a hefty pension bill!. I can sort of understand why they're raising raising retirement age, people live much longer now compared to when pensions first started.

I am quite surprised at how high child tax credits are, I didn't think it would be as much. Again I can now see why they're trying to cut back.

I do find it quite annoying when you see posters on these threads having a go at those on sickness or unemployment benefits, they'll proudly state that they don't claim any benefits and they only get CTC. Conveniently forgetting that CTC is a state benefit and it costs the country about double the amount paid out in JSA & ESA.

GrungeMeister

Charityworker wrote: »

Well it might have all changed but when I worked at the dss about 20 years ago there was incentives for sanctioning people. I worked in filing then but the admin officers got things from vouchers to tvs depending on how much the sanction was worth. Having said that, they sanctioned people for genuine reasons then, not farting at the wrong time like they do with people now.

No offence ... but that's a pile of cowdung.

20 years ago it was the Department of Employment which paid benefits for unemployed people, either Unemployment Benefit or Income Support ("E" cases via B2/3).

The DSS had absolutely NOTHING to do with sanctions against those signing on ... absolutely NOTHING.

Vouchers to TV's for applying sanctions ?

That's just utter lies and it just can't go unchallenged.

sammyjammy

GrungeMeister wrote: »

No offence ... but that's a pile of cowdung.

20 years ago it was the Department of Employment which paid benefits for unemployed people, either Unemployment Benefit or Income Support ("E" cases via B2/3).

The DSS had absolutely NOTHING to do with sanctions against those signing on ... absolutely NOTHING.

Vouchers to TV's for applying sanctions ?

That's just utter lies and it just can't go unchallenged.

Indeed it is lies, I spotted it earlier but made the assumption everyone would know it was rubbish. In fact 20 years ago the only real sanctions people got were on availability issues on making their claim and LV and Misconduct on leaving a job.