Sanctions

~Chameleon~

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.

You still have to jump through the hoops though, attending work related appts at the JC to the detriment of other commitments that might actually being doing something positive to get you off ESA.

You are also required to go on workfare programmes as and when they see fit. The sick & disabled are no longer left to heal.

Failure to do what they request leads to a sanction regardless of health.

e.g someone I know who has recently been sectioned to hospital has been sanctioned for failing to comply with a work related appt.

~Chameleon~

anonymousx3 wrote: »

Why not give claimants rewards which top up their basic allowance (that feeds their need for sustenance) and sanction the rewards instead as a punishment for their accomplishments (so e.g. reward them for completing a course, finding a job, etc - let the system track their progress - and when there comes a time where they unreasonably refuse these steps when available, punish their rewards).

I still don't understand why some of you people would advocate for the removal of their only means of sustenance, which could in effect kill them, based on a few hiccups they make in error with regards to fulfilling their work-related demands. This is supposed to be a civilized nation and people are acting incredibly barbaric with regards to benefits.

Precisely! The law states a minimum amount to live on for a reason. To take that away is criminal.

clemmatis

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.

Essex to Surrey, Sussex to London? Gosh.

Did you fail to see I was discussing Qatar? Did you also fail to see the whole context?

(Yes.)

clemmatis

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

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.

Ah. Another one... Perhaps you'd like to address my argument in para 1. of #83, which explicitly addresses the general effect of such moves.
.

Dunroamin

clemmatis wrote: »

Essex to Surrey, Sussex to London? Gosh.

Did you fail to see I was discussing Qatar? Did you also fail to see the whole context?

(Yes.)

For a working class teenager, leaving home for the first time in the 1930's, that represented a psychological distance far greater than that between the UK and Qatar for a middle aged, middle class man in the twenty first century. I'm surprised that you wouldn't appreciate that.

mysterywoman10

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.

Interesting .........

skintmacflint

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

What a load of political bias rubbish, I know many very hard working people made redundant in their late 50's who have been sanctioned very unfairly for absolutely trying their best!!!

What planet are you living on?!!!

How many ? And what percentage do they represent of the others on the same benfit who weren't?

mysterywoman10

skintmacflint wrote: »

How many ? And what percentage do they represent of the others on the same benfit who weren't?

I know personally of at least 10 people who have recently been made redundant in their late 50's of whom 5 of whom have been sanctioned for so say not trying hard enough, all of whom have worked all their lives without claiming unemployment benefits for any period of time before. Sad state of affairs.

Everyone who lives in the real world who is claiming JSA knows the slightest and smallest dreamed up reason will get you sanctioned, whether you have paid into the system all your life or not!!

We've all seen the target letters for sanctioning or have you not?

skintmacflint

Had thought you meant hundreds.

Have already said, as I believe the majority of people would, sanctions shouldn't be applied for no reason , to just fabricate numbers to meet targets.

If people are being unfairly sanctioned they'll need to take steps to ensure no more are applied meantime, lodge a formal complaint, take their evidence to their MP , as well as lodging an appeal.

If everyone affected does this, and more decisions are overturned than agreed with, or it points to someone in the job centre being vindictive , it should become apparent and change will follow.

Unfortunately the job centre is a huge computerised automated process now, it treats everyone the same regardless of whether they've worked all their life or not.

It also makes mistakes, and sometimes can't cope with each individual's circumstances. But it is what it is for the moment.

Dunroamin

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I know personally of at least 10 people who have recently been made redundant in their late 50's of whom 5 of whom have been sanctioned for so say not trying hard enough, all of whom have worked all their lives without claiming unemployment benefits for any period of time before. Sad state of affairs.

Just because someone's worked all their lives doesn't mean that they necessarily comply with their job seekers agreement and, after all, you only have their word for the fact that they've been trying hard enough. Having worked with this age group (not with the JCP) many of them feel that they deserve to take a break after working all these years and many others can be very inflexible in the sort of work that they're prepared to do and the sort of wage they're prepared to work for.

I'm not saying that this is the case for the people you know and, if mistakes are made I hope that they've appealed and got things sorted out, but there are two sides to every story and you'll only have heard one of them. In any large organisation mistakes will be made .