After the Work Programme

john539

csmw wrote: »

As I said before when you were busy trying to insult me.

BORE OFF!!!!!!!

You can't justify what you're saying.

donnajunkie

csmw wrote: »

Why exactly should I not love my job,?? because part of it is to refer people to a decision maker for not doing what they have agreed to do.


Sorry but people need to stop thinking that JSA is some god given right when its not, not everybody who signs on is genuine.


My time is better spent trying to help those that need and want help but unfortunately its taken up by those who think they can play the system, those who think they can spit at, punch, swear and be racial to advisors for telling them things they don't want to hear.


I'm not going to apologise for loving my job, I like helping people. I've been an adviser for over 10 years in both private and public sector and will always go out my way to help people, but unfortunately part of my job is also to enforce government rules... not my own made up rules those that are set in legislation

the reason you gave for loving your job was because it helps you provide for your kids. my point is if a job requires you to do horrible things and you are a decent person you will hate it even if it helps you provide for your kids. your post gives the impression you would do anything if it means you can provide for your kids and you would be happy about it.

donnajunkie

csmw wrote: »

Ok ok I'm wrong, customer don't turn up to my jobcentre in audi Q7's, BMW X5's and Range evoques. its just a figment of my imagination.

so why not take their registration and get them investigated for fraud? its only people upto alot of no good who fit your description.

csmw

john539 wrote: »

You can't justify what you're saying.

I don't need to justify myself to people like you

donnajunkie

csmw wrote: »

I can see why there are so many bad advisors in JCP as the attacks that I am receiving on here for trying to be helpful are only the tip of what we actually have to deal with at work. It's like dealing with a bunch of playground bullys.

A few years ago we were all labour drones now we are Tory drones it's all just a little pathetic

i have been very fair with you and anything you have said that deserves criticism has got it.

csmw

donnajunkie wrote: »

you said to me its amazing how quickly people get a job when they get sanctioned. this gives the impression that just like the powers that be you think all sanctioned people deserve the sanction. this is because what you said implies they are workshy.

No thats just how you've taken it. Because you automatically think negative of advisers.

I believe the only reason you're now referring to the 'impression' of all my posts is due to szam previous post.

szam_

donnajunkie wrote: »

the reason you gave for loving your job was because it helps you provide for your kids. my point is if a job requires you to do horrible things and you are a decent person you will hate it even if it helps you provide for your kids. your post gives the impression you would do anything if it means you can provide for your kids and you would be happy about it.

If there is a justifiable reason for referring someone for sanctioning, then I see no reason why someone would have to feel bad about it. Perhaps the enjoyable side of her job is actually being able to help the people that want it, and appreciate it?

Maybe generalisations have been made in this thread, I don't know, but you're no more mature for spreading your generalisations here, too. It's a little bit disheartening that in a previous post you refer to all JCP staff as nasty (again, generalisation), but it's down to how nasty that member of staff is. I've come across some lovely staff at the JCP and that is spitting on the good work I know they do, and did for me.

donnajunkie

csmw wrote: »

No thats just how you've taken it. Because you automatically think negative of advisers.

I believe the only reason you're now referring to the 'impression' of all my posts is due to szam previous post.

no, what i concluded was based solely on the content of the post. i dont see how anyone can think anything else. if that is not what you think then you need to word things better.

szam_

csmw wrote: »

No thats just how you've taken it. Because you automatically think negative of advisers.

I believe the only reason you're now referring to the 'impression' of all my posts is due to szam previous post.

I should clarify that I my last post quoting you wasn't meant as a dig, regarding the 'read as a generalisation', I try to be as impartial as possible, but like to dictate my views by logic. I realise that things will be read the wrong way, hence why I said, sometimes you need to spell things out to get your point across as it was meant to be taken or else people will take it how they want to take it.

I'm not sure how my posts would be considered as fuel for people to have a further go at you, I feel my posts are balanced and I try to see things from both sides.

donnajunkie

szam_ wrote: »

If there is a justifiable reason for referring someone for sanctioning, then I see no reason why someone would have to feel bad about it. Perhaps the enjoyable side of her job is actually being able to help the people that want it, and appreciate it?

Maybe generalisations have been made in this thread, I don't know, but you're no more mature for spreading your generalisations here, too. It's a little bit disheartening that in a previous post you refer to all JCP staff as nasty (again, generalisation), but it's down to how nasty that member of staff is. I've come across some lovely staff at the JCP and that is spitting on the good work I know they do, and did for me.

you see no reasons at all to feel bad. do you understand the impact of a sanction? they may have kids at home. even if they have done wrong i cant see how someone couldnt still feel bad about doing it.
did i really say all jcp staff are nasty? please direct me to where i said that and if i did i will put things right.