Sanctions

seven-day-weekend

donnajunkie wrote: »

failing to do what they deem as reasonable can result in a sanction.

Such as? .

Dunroamin

donnajunkie wrote: »

they are to punish people and to save money. people dont like losing 1 days money so sanctions that last for 1 day would be suitable from a motivational point of view if that was the purpose of sanctions.

Punishment and motivation are two sides of the same coin.

donnajunkie

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Such as? .

failing to apply for a certain number of jobs per week, failing to apply for a specific job, failing to do a training course etc. basically anything they deem mandatory you have to do. if you can show it was unreasonable then you could of course win an appeal. people dont just get sanctioned for being late or missing appointments.

donnajunkie

Dunroamin wrote: »

Punishment and motivation are two sides of the same coin.

yes but you can tell what the intention is by the length of a sanction. 1 day would be enough to motivate. making them longer than necessary tells us their intention is not a good intention.

princessdon

donnajunkie wrote: »

they are to punish people and to save money. people dont like losing 1 days money so sanctions that last for 1 day would be suitable from a motivational point of view if that was the purpose of sanctions.

I can't believe I am agreeing with DJ, but I am. I think the sanctions are too harsh. I agree with sanctions but think perhaps 1 day (1st offence), 1 week 2nd offence, 1 month 3rd offence within a 12 mos rolling period would be more suitable.

I think the punishment they receive via sanctions are way too harsh at times and leads to a stalemate and lack of trust with the JCP advisors.

clemmatis

princessdon wrote: »

Why, my OH took a job in London to provide for us. I'd rather have him home but until a job exists he does what is needed. People need to widen their horizons, people have been on long term benefits for years, if no jobs then they surely need to widen their search?

They'd have to widen it pretty massively i.e. beyond the borders of the UK, as there are -- and I take into account inadequacies of official statistics... -- far fewer UK jobs than jobseekers.

And most people who have "been on long term benefits for years" are unlikely to land a job even if they do up sticks. (Not that there are all that many such people.)

And increasingly the jobs available are part-time or zero hours ones.

donnajunkie

princessdon wrote: »

I can't believe I am agreeing with DJ, but I am. I think the sanctions are too harsh. I agree with sanctions but think perhaps 1 day (1st offence), 1 week 2nd offence, 1 month 3rd offence within a 12 mos rolling period would be more suitable.

I think the punishment they receive via sanctions are way too harsh at times and leads to a stalemate and lack of trust with the JCP advisors.

i think 1 day is enough whether its the first or 31st offence. i say this because if you fail to do something the requirement to do it remains. so if you kept not doing it you would keep getting 1 day sanctions. if after losing 2 or 3 days money on 2 or 3 occasions you still arent motivated to do what is required of you then you never will be.
i certainly dont agree with a sanction being any longer than 3 days.

princessdon

clemmatis wrote: »

They'd have to widen it pretty massively i.e. beyond the borders of the UK, as there are -- and I take into account inadequacies of official statistics... -- far fewer UK jobs than jobseekers.

And most people who have "been on long term benefits for years" are unlikely to land a job even if they do up sticks. (Not that there are all that many such people.)

And increasingly the jobs available are part-time or zero hours ones.

But the fact remains that they need to widen their horizons. If there are no jobs then what is wrong with working away? My OH was contemplating Quattar, sometimes you need to look further afield.

We can't allow people to remain dependant on benefits in such a narrow way. I have seen posts on here along the lines of the following

"I won't get back home to pick my kids up from school", "I won't be able to bath my child every night as I need to work until 6pm 2 nights a week", "with travel I will be out of the house for 10 hours a day" etc etc.

That is life and reality. People work long hours, people have long commutes, people don't get to put their children to bed 7 days a week. When there is already often a SAHP why does the 2nd one need part time, local, early finish hours.

If someone CAN get work in another city then they should move. It annoys me when people say that it is wrong for people to be forced to move (the cap for instance), it's wrong they get paid £26K tax free, £34K wage - without travel and work costs for doing nothing.

princessdon

donnajunkie wrote: »

i think 1 day is enough whether its the first or 31st offence. i say this because if you fail to do something the requirement to do it remains. so if you kept not doing it you would keep getting 1 day sanctions. if after losing 2 or 3 days money on 2 or 3 occasions you still arent motivated to do what is required of you then you never will be.
i certainly dont agree with a sanction being any longer than 3 days.

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.

Dunroamin

donnajunkie wrote: »

yes but you can tell what the intention is by the length of a sanction. 1 day would be enough to motivate. making them longer than necessary tells us their intention is not a good intention.

Can you ever have too much motivation?