After the Work Programme

csmw

iammumtoone wrote: »

but the probablem is reasonably can be interpreted differently.

Take the example given hours are stated as 9-2, 8.30-2.30 clearly reasonable, 7-5 clearly unreasonable, 8-3 maybe reasonable, 8-3.30 getting unreasonable?? if it was 8-3.30 every day maybe it is, if it was 8-3.30 one day and the other days 8-2.30 maybe it isn't?? I am trying to point out an advisor could think something was reasonable, the customer not, the customer then gets sanctioned. Unless the JC define what they see as 'reasonable' it is unfair.

Take a working environment. Contract says employed must do everything reasonable (fair enough) The employer says to the employee "you are sacked you did not clean out the toilets today" employee replies "I did not realise that was required (ie reasonable), sorry I will do it next time" But is it is too late in the world of the JC there are no second chances so the employee would be out of a job (or sanctioned in the case of claimants) as they did not do something they thought was unreasonable but the employer thought it was.

It's not upto the advisor to sanction though, it's upto the decision maker.

iammumtoone

csmw wrote: »

It's not upto the advisor to sanction though, it's upto the decision maker.

ok fair point but my post still stands how does a claimant know what the DM will see as reasonable. I suspect this will come down to luck on what DM you get as one DM could see something as reasonable and another might not. Unless there is guidance on what is 'reasonable' it is clearly unfair, and for the cynical could be seen as a way to get the sanction rate up it needed.

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Desperate it your perception of why they're asking. If it were me in that situation I'd be considering if sanctions were appropriate based on what I'd done. Or not. Or whether the sanction would stick. Balanced against whether I was being obstructive and evasive following a reasonable request.

Aren't you curious why they're asking you?

desperate because they keep pushing and pushing. its in their tone of voice. you are made to feel its the end of the world if you dont give them access. you cant consider a sanction just because a person refuses to give access.
lol, why have you thrown that question at me yet again. the last post covered this. and for your information they do it to everyone not just me. if you are implying its because i dont do much you are wrong. its nothing to do with how much a person has done.

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Not at all. I regularly carry out tasks I don't like at work but are part of the agreement I have entered into with my employer.

Far from avoid them or complain about them, I proceed to carry them out without any sign of a bad attitude, recognising they're a necessary and reasonable function. In fact where possible I'll get them done first so they're done with.

an employee will moan and complain how rubbish something is at work just like a jobseeker will moan and say how rubbish something they have to do is.

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Seems a fair point given the amount of time spent procrastinating over it.

suggesting its better to give access to save time from talking about it here is a bit nutty.

sensibleadvice

iammumtoone wrote: »

but the probablem is reasonably can be interpreted differently.

Take the example given hours are stated as 9-2, 8.30-2.30 clearly reasonable, 7-5 clearly unreasonable, 8-3 maybe reasonable, 8-3.30 getting unreasonable?? if it was 8-3.30 every day maybe it is, if it was 8-3.30 one day and the other days 8-2.30 maybe it isn't?? I am trying to point out an advisor could think something was reasonable, the customer not, the customer then gets sanctioned. Unless the JC define what they see as 'reasonable' it is unfair.

Take a working environment. Contract says employed must do everything reasonable (fair enough) The employer says to the employee "you are sacked you did not clean out the toilets today" employee replies "I did not realise that was required (ie reasonable), sorry I will do it next time" But is it is too late in the world of the JC there are no second chances so the employee would be out of a job (or sanctioned in the case of claimants) as they did not do something they thought was unreasonable but the employer thought it was.

Reasonable as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.

You've pretty much exampled from reasonable to unreasonable in what you've said there. If somethings on the cusp of reasonable or not, the context and dialogue about why it may or may not be helps determine what is reasonable.

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Great link and clarity on claimant commitment and responsibility.

The Claimant Commitment is a new form of the Jobseeker’s Agreement that outlines what jobseeking actions a claimant must carry out while receiving Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA). It emphasises claimants’ responsibility to do all they can to look for work in return for the support they receive from the state.

We are introducing the JSA Claimant Commitment in around 100 Jobcentres a month, until it is in place across the country by spring 2014.

What the JSA Claimant Commitment means
When someone makes a new claim for JSA or returns to JSA from the Work Programme they will attend an interview with a work coach. At the interview they will agree a personal plan outlining what the claimant will do as part of their Claimant Commitment to give themselves the best chance of finding work. This could include regular specific tasks and training opportunities. The work coach will explain the penalties claimants could face for failing to meet their responsibilities to get into work. They will review the plan regularly.

The Claimant Commitment strengthens the ability of Jobcentre Plus staff to support claimants back into work at the earliest opportunity and redefines the relationship between the welfare state and claimants. In return for state support, we expect claimants to do all they can to meet their responsibilities to return to work.

the claimant commitment isnt here yet but the above is effectively what happens now anyway.

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Does UJM apply from day 1?

i suspect they will require people to register from day one. there is a space for it on the jsa agreement.

sensibleadvice

csmw wrote: »

Why would we reimburse you to prove your looking for work, It's job seekers allowance...says it all in the title don't you think.

And yes of course people can print in the jobcentes, why would we have printers attached to the customer computers otherwise?

Abuse of power lol...If you dont have an email address or phone number how are the employers going to contact you...do you think most of them will write nowadays? its a pretty reasonable request. You need to be available as well as actively seeking

That's part of the problem, they don't. Apparently they see it as an allowance for being unemployed or something like that. Job seeking doesn't come into it.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

the claimant commitment isnt here yet but the above is effectively what happens now anyway.

You got that right.