Important Changes to Jobseekers Allowance Sanctions

andy2004

csmw wrote: »

Again different jobcentre they are not all layed out the same, some even have 3rd floors you know.!!!!!



At the end of the day the fact of the matter is your a grown adult and need to take responsibility for yourself!! blaming all the problems that you have on the jcp is not going to move you forward. You need to look at the career path that you have chosen and really think hard as to whether or not its realistic.

There are 1000's of people out of work at the moment and most dont blame other for their misforrtune they buckle down and do whatever is in their power to get through the hard times and find themeselves other suitable work.

Like the 1000's of people out of work, LOL, try MILLIONS, and not the 3 million they government says, after all when they say about the 18-25 year old being 3million how many does that make the over 25 - 65's 0? the real figure for unemployed people in the UK needs to be shown by the government but will they tell the people how many are unemployed truely, NOPE. even my estimate is wrong i assume around 10million, but i believe its more.

If you have no expereience, no cscs card or a van and it's required for the type of work that is on your Jobseekers agreement, does this not tell you that your not suited to that type of work and would be better off chosing a different career path?????

actually no i wouldnt be better off choosing a different career, I spent 6 years looking for office work, only to find out I was wasting my time according to the interviewer on my last office interview i didnt get the job because of my name, what BS, must have been another reason, but that was the reason she gave, i still dont believe it was that.
I only apply for jobs where it doesnt require me to go out and buy a van. all it says on my Jobseekers agreement is DRIVER, of course if the job advertised is for self-employed driver and says must have own van then I wouldnt apply for it. I apply only for jobs I CAN do.
I dont think that being a shelf filler, is above me, after all i have an IQ of 140,
if you actually look at asda.com and look at their online application form you'll see on it that it has on the last page somewhere to put references, now if you haven't got any references to put down, and you can not fill it in, when you click APPLY it will not let you. it will simply say you need to fill in the required box. so what would be the best thing to put N/A maybe, in name, but then it wont continue due to the address and phone number box's there should be a SKIP references and apply button but there is not. so my application will never be sent.
same goes for other sites using the same type of online form.
at least with application paper form, you could at least put something like available on request in the section doesn;t work with the online form's though.
Those jobs i had reason i dont have references is simply I dont know where the boss's are. I know one went back to birmingham, the other no idea, and as for the 3rd, well, as for what he shouted across his shop as i was walking out the door, I wont be using him as a reference. he'd only lie to the people i applied to. and when asked about what he put, as i did use him once, they replied not at liberty to say.

andy2004

Parva wrote: »

Good lord, no wonder the genuine jobseekers feel so persecuted with attitudes like that at JCP. Whilst I appreciate that there will always be scroungers it's not your job to be judge, jury and executioner! I do hope your bosses don't get wind of this thread as some of the things said by you earlier to one particular poster were vitriolic in the least, not to mention that you got the facts wrong in that particular persons case several times. Very worrying indeed.

All i can say is, when these new sanctions come into force, people who are sanctioned will pay back the person who sanctioned them.
You see the advisers at the jobcentre THINK they are untouchable. the jobseeker can not do anything to them, and technically they are right, they can not do anything LEGAL to them, but then if you are sanctioned for 3years like the new system allows for, I can see jobseekers crossing the line, I can already see the headlines now, in local papers all across the UK, jobcentre staff member attacked and beaten, reason, turns out the attacker had their benefits stopped for 3years by that member of staff or one of their colleagues.
Now to spend 5 years in prison depending of course what happens at a cost of £10,000 per week to taxpayer, for what would have been £142 a fortnight.

Note: the above isn't a threat, it's a premonition of whats to come.
probably the wrong word to use. but you get the idea.

andy2004

Mara69 wrote: »

I would suggest the problem absolutely lies with you. My son is on JSA and has never been sanctioned. But then, he can provide comprehensive evidence of his job searches, has never been late or failed to attend a meeting or appointment at the Job Centre.



Financial support, maybe?

If you..



and have



I would suggest you don't need their help. You know how to job search, how to keep a record of a job search. The JCP staff will have their hands full with less able job seekers.

Perhaps you could try being less aggressive and a little more amenable. Getting on your high horse and refusing to 'work for free' will not endear you to employers. Perhaps if you were a little more willing, take part in an unpaid work trial and use it as an opportunity to demonstrate your magnificent skills an employer would be encouraged to give you a chance.

How long has your son been unemployed, he will be sanctioned under the new scheme. i'm assuming its less than 6months.

And as for your comment, I have never missed an appointment or been late for one at the jobcentre, I forgot an appointment with the A4E program, forgetting an appointment is not missing an appointment, and after all it was done deliberately.
As for my jobsearch, to much detail is as bad as to little. to much detail and they'll think its fake. been there.

Note: dont believe what the government says about unemployment figures showing 3.5million people unemployed in this country.
its a lot HIGHER than that. hell they said there where 3million 18-24 year olds unemployed on tv the other day, then said the total unemployed was 3.5 million. so 25-65 = 1/2 million. don't think so.

csmw

andy2004 wrote: »

All i can say is, when these new sanctions come into force, people who are sanctioned will pay back the person who sanctioned them.
You see the advisers at the jobcentre THINK they are untouchable. the jobseeker can not do anything to them, and technically they are right, they can not do anything LEGAL to them, but then if you are sanctioned for 3years like the new system allows for, I can see jobseekers crossing the line, I can already see the headlines now, in local papers all across the UK, jobcentre staff member attacked and beaten, reason, turns out the attacker had their benefits stopped for 3years by that member of staff or one of their colleagues.
Now to spend 5 years in prison depending of course what happens at a cost of £10,000 per week to taxpayer, for what would have been £142 a fortnight.

Note: the above isn't a threat, it's a premonition of whats to come.
probably the wrong word to use. but you get the idea.

There is no reasoning with people like you, yes admittedly there are some bad advisors out ther that get it wrong. But there are some terrific advisor that do all they can to help ther clients.

what you fail to realise is we dont make the rules we simply enforce them it's part of our job. The sanctions are ther for a reason not for pleasure. Do you think we actually enjoy stopping peoples money?????

It is called jobseekers allowance not sit on your !!!! and spend 2 mins a week in the jcp to recieve your benefit allowance.

If people do not like the terms of the contract they sign up to then they should'nt sign up to it.

You see majority of the people out there are doing everything they can to look for work and for that they recieve their payments...there are however people that think its acceptable to play the system and choose claiming as a lifestyle...those people should not recieve their payments which is why we have the sanctions.

Advisor are already getting attacked and in some circumstances have even be killed, what exactly do you want us to do....not do our job in fear of reprocussion??

Mara69

andy2004 wrote: »

How long has your son been unemployed, he will be sanctioned under the new scheme. i'm assuming its less than 6months.

Sadly, you assume wrongly.

andy2004 wrote: »

forgetting an appointment is not missing an appointment, and after all it was done deliberately.

That is patently nonsense. If you forget an appointment you don't attend, ergo you have missed the appointment. Whether it was intentional or not is a moot point (although looking at your post it appears it was deliberate!)

andy2004 wrote: »

As for my jobsearch, to much detail is as bad as to little. to much detail and they'll think its fake. been there.

Again, this is not the case for my son. He searches every day, logs his searches and has had a number of interviews. Never has his advisor accused him of faking his job search record.

red_devil

is it against human rights to make sanctions.

People get benefit to to be able to eat etc

if you are in prison you get fed.

I dont understand it, can they do this?

Mersey_2

Wow - failing to attend an adviser interview used to just result in a 1 week sanction, not 13 weeks!!

This is particularly harsh, especially as often letters aren't sent out, or are addressed incorrectly.

Matt123ABC

Hi to all!
Having just returned from my fortnightly visit at the local
jobcentre, I do feel that this new legislation is going to be
utilised in different ways within different centres, by each
individual advisor.

A good thing is to see jobseeking being enforced.
A bad thingis my experience from today!!

As always, the previous fortnight has been spent searching and
applying for work - with printed evidence as requested.
Today I arrived with a fraction of usual - only seven applications completed, but proof at least of doing what I can.

No problems with my proof, but I was then given details of a job
for which I have no previous experience. This job I was told to apply for??
I did try to explain that I ticked none of the boxes, with the answer been "transferable skills".

Unfortunately the agency (whome I am already registered) with which I now MUST apply may wonder why I'm applying for a job so diverse from trade and may effect any other suitable postions they may hold.

I must add that prior to this I have found my local Job Centre staff very helpful - seem to get the impression they also have new legislation to adheer to?

Very best of luck to all those out there currently on the jobless list!! Got to get better for all!:)

red_devil

can someone please comment on the human rights issue of this.How can you stop peoples jobseekers allowance.This is money for food etc? You sign on because your unemployed and you need money to live?

Even prisoners have human rights.

Also what is all this calling on shops and ringing shops on spec?How many companies out there and all they all going to be bombarded by letters and callers etc? They are going to get fed up?

saintjammyswine

red_devil wrote: »

can someone please comment on the human rights issue of this.How can you stop peoples jobseekers allowance.This is money for food etc? You sign on because your unemployed and you need money to live?

Even prisoners have human rights.

...

OK, comment ahead, beware.


Jobseeker's Allowance is a two way contract. The government, via their agencies, will provide an amount of money as welfare in return for a level of activity around returning to work. It is not a free handout. There are expectations from both sides, including that benefit will be paid regularly and at the right amount, support will be given where there are clear skills gaps and where possible. The flipside is that certain tasks must be done and therefore evidenced such as attendance at signing, job applications etc and that where support is offered it is engaged with and every effort made to improve the skills shortages.


That is my comment, not that of any of the agencies or organisations I work with, as requested.