Sanctions

seven-day-weekend

anonymousx3 wrote: »

What would it be for the individual who is not deemed "sick"/"disabled" enough by benefit criteria but is still not fit for work? What are these individuals supposed to do?

If they wish to receive JSA, look for a job. If they think they are entitled to ESA, appeal. They won't get any money otherwise. What do you suggest they should do?

I do feel for these people who slip through the net, but I'm sure the vast majority of claimants are on the correct Benefit.

clemmatis

princessdon wrote: »

Not really - he took redundancy (knew the company wasn't going anywhere - since went bust), and couldn't find work in the area.

The motivation (for a decision that worked out very well with home working) was lack of benefits. We would never have taken such a drastic decision but had no choice.

I worked 11 hours a week, we were given £71 pw JSA cont based. No tax credits, nothing - try paying a mortgage, feed and clothe 3 children on 11 hrs work and JSA.

It was motivation to look wider. I'm always honest and can say if they'd paid the interest on the mortgage, plus the TC people get I'd have happily took time over job seeking, we either had to use all the money we saved for our children's future or get job ASAP.

I went full time that week, he got a job very quickly.

So he chose to leave. Presumably the reason he couldn't get more than £71 JSA -- no other benefits -- was that he had a redundancy payoff. My brother was in that position. He was older; his children had jobs. Eventually he simply "downsized" and took a public sector computer tech. support job.

My point is that "my husband would have gone to Qatar" is no more generally applicable than "my brother 'downsized', taking a public sector tech. support job". I'm not sure there's much point explaining why. I have tried.

Of course it's always rotten. My grammar school best friend's father was MD of a chemicals company; he lost his job following a takeover. That was rotten for them.

Dunroamin

clemmatis wrote: »

As for your husband: I assume he would only have moved to Qatar for a *good* job. I've known numerous people who had to move to get the job of their choice -- often, to the USA. They wouldn't have moved for any old job. And why should they?

.

My father moved from Essex to Surrey to be a gardener and my mother moved from Sussex to London be a nanny. Perhaps they should have stayed put and been unemployed all through the Depression because these weren't "good", well paid jobs.

seven-day-weekend

Dunroamin wrote: »

My father moved from Essex to Surrey to be a gardener and my mother moved from Sussex to London be a nanny. Perhaps they should have stayed put and been unemployed all through the Depression because these weren't "good", well paid jobs.

My mum moved from Norwich to Liverpool to be a cleaner in a hospital and from Liverpool to Portsmouth to be a waitress. Later, my dad moved (and then the family) from Norwich to Wolverhampton to work on a machine in a factory, then went back to Norwich, still no work so moved to Wolverhampton again.

princessdon

clemmatis wrote: »

So he chose to leave. Presumably the reason he couldn't get more than £71 JSA -- no other benefits -- was that he had a redundancy payoff. My brother was in that position. He was older; his children had jobs. Eventually he simply "downsized" and took a public sector computer tech. support job.

My point is that "my husband would have gone to Qatar" is no more generally applicable than "my brother 'downsized', taking a public sector tech. support job". I'm not sure there's much point explaining why. I have tried.

Of course it's always rotten. My grammar school best friend's father was MD of a chemicals company; he lost his job following a takeover. That was rotten for them.

You miss the point (and no the redundancy payout wasn't the issue as tax credits don't use savings, it was because we earnt too much that year to be eligible), and my part time work. The money was in an offset mortgage so discounted for benefits. The point was that we were forced to really look for work, not wait for a downgrade job. Your brother was older with no dependants or large mortgage. We were forced to consider all options, not take time looking.

There are loads of overseas jobs, builders, plumbers and many other jobs.

Yes he left - but as he could see if he hadn't a few months later it would have meant far less once receivers took over, so a forced decision to leave rather than a free choice.

It's not ideal to move a family, but surely its better than being long term on benefits. I know unskilled have not got this choice, but many skilled workers do, but its not worth it when they lose benefits.

donnajunkie

princessdon wrote: »

Not really 1 day for some is coppers. Take a family with DLA and children, TC will make up their main income, so 1 day JSA is nothing to them.

For a singleton with a home to run, I'd agree, but not all on benefits are on £56 a week, some have income greater than workers could ever dream of and therefore £10 wouldn't provide much motivation.

can you really sanction the part of the money that supports the kids though?
regarding workers, well workers incomes vary greatly but they all lose one days pay for having one day off sick. higher paid workers dont lose more than that. having said all that perhaps a slightly bigger sanction could be applied to those with a higher benefit income. its tricky though.

donnajunkie

Dunroamin wrote: »

Can you ever have too much motivation?

i think you've misunderstood the post.

donnajunkie

Dunroamin wrote: »

The vast majority of JSA claimants aren't on £56 per week!;) I agree with you that, for many, losing only a day's money would be a laughable sanction.

what you are not considering is if they continue to not meet the requirement they will repeatedly be sanctioned and the impact increases.

donnajunkie

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

If you are on sickness benefits you don't have to apply for jobs, only if you are on Jobseekers' Allowance and if you are too sick to apply for jobs you should not be on JSA.

is the only mandatory requirement to turn up for appointments?

princessdon

donnajunkie wrote: »

can you really sanction the part of the money that supports the kids though?
regarding workers, well workers incomes vary greatly but they all lose one days pay for having one day off sick. higher paid workers dont lose more than that. having said all that perhaps a slightly bigger sanction could be applied to those with a higher benefit income. its tricky though.

I can honestly say as a parent I do not need £85 pw to feed and clothe my child, I could do this on far less especially short term.

Quite often workers lose more. Sickness policy can lead to sacking ergo a 26 week sanction. 3 days per year in some companies, its getting tough for workers too.