Sanctions

Dunroamin

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.

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.

clemmatis

princessdon wrote: »

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.

My point is that at a time when there are fewer jobs than jobseekers both nationally and in every single region, widening horizons will at best -- *at best* -- job-shuffle. I.e. if they move city to get a job as a sales assistant, someone else will be out of a job.

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?

Also 26k is the maximum payable. The maximum.

seven-day-weekend

donnajunkie wrote: »

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.

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.

bigjl

Lip_Stick wrote: »

The difference is that JSA claimants lose money for at least a couple of weeks for a missed appointment, or perhaps for just being late. Somehow I don't see your hubby losing that much pay if he turned up late because of transport issues etc.

Well I know of someone that was sacked for being late to work.

And if you take an unauthorised absence from NHS employment you can find your self with serious disciplinary problems.

Surely if you expect such high standards from those who sacrifice so much to provide you with an essential public service.

The least you can expect is those not working to turn up for a few appointments?

Obviously with consideration for those with mental or physical disabilities that need to be considered.

We all have to fit things in, and that is a fact if life.

princessdon

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.

I just think sanctions are harder on singletons running homes, perhaps a percentage of all cash benefits would be a better way.

princessdon

clemmatis wrote: »

My point is that at a time when there are fewer jobs than jobseekers both nationally and in every single region, widening horizons will at best -- *at best* -- job-shuffle. I.e. if they move city to get a job as a sales assistant, someone else will be out of a job.

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?

Also 26k is the maximum payable. The maximum.

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.

anonymousx3

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.

princessdon

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.

Because you are assuming that benefits are sustenance. Whilst for some they can be, for some they give a better disposable income than those who pay taxes. To reward people for doing what they should do is just adding to the culture.

When my OH was unemployed he was out of this house at 7am until 6pm every day, looking for work, networking and keeping his mind busy. He saved 2 local charities thousands by doing free work (even at the weekend), did 2 courses, did his literacy qualification as had no GCSE in English without threats or being asked. its what people should do, there should be no need to pay them for doing a course.

anonymousx3

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.

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?

seven-day-weekend

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.

Lovely idea. I will expect my rewards in the morning. I get out of bed everyday and on the days I'm working I'm there on time and dressed appropriately. I do what my clients ask of me and don't grizzle. I'm past retirement age and not expected to work, but do so anyway. In addition to my wage I'd like a citybreak to Rome please.

Reward someone for getting out of bed and getting somewhere on time? , I should cocoa, as my f-i-l used to say.