JSA And Funeral Attendance

missapril75

princessdon wrote: »

you showed it was down to the discretion of the employer - there are many (especially NMW jobs) who wouldn't allow paid time for this. A "good" employer would, but reality is not all and I'd say few if being honest would pay for someone to be away 1-2 days for a none immediate family funeral.

I agree. I was just showing some would as opposed to definitely wouldn't.

why can't OP take unpaid benefits? If they can afford the trip then a day or two loss in benefits (especially as they have had holidays) isn't an unrealistic expectation surely?

Maybe the cost and the loss is too much for her. Especially when the rules do allow it.

missapril75

Dunroamin wrote: »

You've done it again - jumped from "may" to "would" and forgotten the "exceptional circumstances"!

Come off it, be fair.

If an employer says special leave with pay may be given for attending the funeral of a friend then clearly there are occasions when they would do it.

It's not a jump, it's basic logic. I'm saying would not to say that it will always apply but that it might as opposed to the never that some claimed.


And I haven't forgotten the exceptional circumstances. They apply to the additional days that would be considered and may be allowed.

missapril75

Dunroamin wrote: »

I've spent virtually all my working life in the public sector and, even here, the rules are normally a maximum of 5 days paid compassionate leave for the death of a spouse, child or parent and a day for the funeral of a more distant relative such as a aunt or uncle.

Me too. 30+ years DSS/DWP.

From their staff rules:

There are a number of categories of special leave that may be granted. These are:
• Bereavement leave when a member of an employee's immediate family, partner or close friend dies.

So a major civil service department is able to/may/could/might allow special leave for the death of a close friend as well as a spouse.

Perhaps it's more common than we all think and that as with some benefit questions, first reaction is not always the correct one.



Anyway, time I bowed out I think. It was fun while it lasted.
:beer:

Anubis_2

missapril75 wrote: »

I still don't understand why what happens to someone working should be what happens to them when they're not working.

Why should they have the same restictions as workers when they don't get the same rewards?

Remuneration for workers (and their obligations) have absolutely nothing in common with non-workers.

missapril75 wrote: »

Okay. But above is an example of an employer who would do between 1 and 6 days for a close friend. I'll bet they're not the only one.

So on the one hand you see no link, on the other you compare what employers would allow.

The difference between employed and unemployed is the employed are working for their money, the unemployed are not. If someone who earns their money is docked a days pay for being 200 miles away at a funeral, then surely it is not unreasonable to do similar with someone who is freely given money and unable to attend an interview at short notice because they are so far away?

In the first case, the worker has those consequences because they are unable to fullfill their work obligations for that day, in the second case, the unemployed person is unable to fullfill their obligation and JSA agreement to be available for an interview. There is absolutely no way they can go to a local interview at short notice that day - in which case they may get their benefits sanctioned. I would also suspect, given the vast amount of time spent travelling in one day, and the length of the funeral, they are unable to fullfill jobseeking that day to the full extent.

So what is better? A sanction of complete benefit for not turning up to an interview, or pre arrangement with the JC with a days money deducted, and an agreement that interviews or jobseeking that day does not have to take place?

However, I think if a relative's funeral, no matter the distance, then there should be NO money deducted, but in the case of a freind's relative, to somewhere of such long distance, then I don't think it should be an automatic right, as it is unlikely to be an automatic right if working.

Sorry, even though I am left wing, and on benefits myself, I don't think it is fair that workers are very likely to lose their pay/or a day's holiday in the same circumstance, while an unemployed person, who is unable to fund themselves at that moment in time, so have to rely on benefits paid from working people's taxes, have no deduction made.

SmartPricePoster

So, has the OP actually been back and told us what happened yet?

mattcanary

Anubis wrote: »

So on the one hand you see no link, on the other you compare what employers would allow.

The difference between employed and unemployed is the employed are working for their money, the unemployed are not. If someone who earns their money is docked a days pay for being 200 miles away at a funeral, then surely it is not unreasonable to do similar with someone who is freely given money and unable to attend an interview at short notice because they are so far away?

In the first case, the worker has those consequences because they are unable to fullfill their work obligations for that day, in the second case, the unemployed person is unable to fullfill their obligation and JSA agreement to be available for an interview. There is absolutely no way they can go to a local interview at short notice that day - in which case they may get their benefits sanctioned. I would also suspect, given the vast amount of time spent travelling in one day, and the length of the funeral, they are unable to fullfill jobseeking that day to the full extent.

So what is better? A sanction of complete benefit for not turning up to an interview, or pre arrangement with the JC with a days money deducted, and an agreement that interviews or jobseeking that day does not have to take place?

However, I think if a relative's funeral, no matter the distance, then there should be NO money deducted, but in the case of a freind's relative, to somewhere of such long distance, then I don't think it should be an automatic right, as it is unlikely to be an automatic right if working.

Sorry, even though I am left wing, and on benefits myself, I don't think it is fair that workers are very likely to lose their pay/or a day's holiday in the same circumstance, while an unemployed person, who is unable to fund themselves at that moment in time, so have to rely on benefits paid from working people's taxes, have no deduction made.

All the JobCentre needed to do was to change the sign on day!
All this rubbish when the DWP could do something simple to solve the problem.

stevemLS

Why resurrect a 2 year old thread that didn't really seem to get anywhere in the first place.