Sanctions

donnajunkie

Dunroamin wrote: »

I very much doubt it.;)

there are 2 possiblities. you are motivated or you are not motivated. there arent degrees. do you really think for example there is any difference in motivation between facing 6 months of starvation or 3 years of starvation. once a sanction is set at a fair length making it any longer just turns it into a punishment/money saving exercise rather than something with the purpose to motivate. of course motivation may also exist as with a shorter fairer sanction. common sense tells you what the real intention is though.

donnajunkie

Dunroamin wrote: »

Then perhaps they'll start to meet the requirements. Let's face it, the requirements for claiming JSA aren't particularly onerous.

so does that mean you agree?

donnajunkie

skintmacflint wrote: »

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.

alot of people dont have the confidence or knowledge to take them on and the powers that be tend to all stick together whether in the right or not.

donnajunkie

Dunroamin wrote: »

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 .

lets say some of these people hadnt done as much as they should. the fact is these people probably have the intention to do what they should and do want a job. so hardly a work shy scrounger. so because of poor judgement they are being treated like a workshy scrounger and punished with over the top sanctions. how about offering some guidance instead so that these people can get their heads around what they need to be doing?
a big part of the problem is dwp, jobcentres etc operate like the gestapo instead of being there to support people like they should be.

donnajunkie

Dovah_diva wrote: »

And I personally know of at least five people who have been on JSA for a while and have never been sanctioned.

We can all trot out 'Uncle Norman' stories to bolster our point.

you knowing some people who have never been sanctioned does not weaken the posters point at all.

Dunroamin

donnajunkie wrote: »

there are 2 possiblities. you are motivated or you are not motivated. there arent degrees. do you really think for example there is any difference in motivation between facing 6 months of starvation or 3 years of starvation. once a sanction is set at a fair length making it any longer just turns it into a punishment/money saving exercise rather than something with the purpose to motivate. of course motivation may also exist as with a shorter fairer sanction. common sense tells you what the real intention is though.

Of course there are degrees of motivation. If it's a lovely day and you don't fancy going into town to sign on, do you think you're more likely to skip signing if you lose one day or one week's money?

donnajunkie

Dunroamin wrote: »

Of course there are degrees of motivation. If it's a lovely day and you don't fancy going into town to sign on, do you think you're more likely to skip signing if you lose one day or one week's money?

if i dont want to lose one days money then i wont skip signing on. so motivation is the same. also i would have to turn up at some point otherwise i would keep getting one days money taken away until i do turn up. so do you see what my point is. if a small sanction doesnt get you there you will keep getting sanctioned and that means the loss to the claimant gets bigger and bigger like you desire it to be. this way though is fairer as they only face massive loss for continuing to not fulfill their requirements.

Dovah_diva

clemmatis wrote: »

New member?

Yes. Your point being?

donnajunkie wrote: »

you knowing some people who have never been sanctioned does not weaken the posters point at all.

You missed my point entirely.

donnajunkie

Dovah_diva wrote: »

You missed my point entirely.

you were clearly trying to put down what they were saying.

Dovah_diva

donnajunkie wrote: »

you were clearly trying to put down what they were saying.

No. I was pointing out that we all can trot out stories of people that have/have not been sanctioned. These are our own experiences, our own stories. They do not make a point more valid. It's like me saying driving red cars is safer than blue as I know 5 people that drive blue cars and they've all had accidents. Then someone else says but I know 5 people who drive red cars and have had accidents...

Neither point is truly valid as it is inevitably going to be swayed by personal opinion.