After the Work Programme

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

thats not the point. the point is if its now a 7 day per week business then the service related to it should be a 7 day service. are you an adviser also? your so keen to say to one group that they must have no free time but when they suggest that another group should also not have free time you dont like it.

The point is if a claimants JSA states every day then every means every day and an advisors hours are irrelevant to that point.

Presumably though, you'll be happier with the extra support that daily signing will bring.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

it says everyday nothing else. i think you may find if a person puts nothing down for a bank holiday or any other day they could very well get sanctioned if their agreement says everyday. would you take that chance? no of course not. so it takes us back to my original point in relation to what if you are ill etc.

So you accept that 'every' day includes the expectation to seek work 7 days per week. Don't you get SSP if you're ill?

Chester666666

sensibleadvice wrote: »

The point is if a claimants JSA states every day then every means every day and an advisors hours are irrelevant to that point.

Presumably though, you'll be happier with the extra support that daily signing will bring.

That relies on the idea there is support now
Unless you confuse tick boxing and threats with support then there's zero

Chester666666

red_devil wrote: »

Justcsaying in response to daily signing how can it be feasible. Unless the jc is open longer i cant see it happening.

Dunno but they'll find a way to make this punitive idea happen sadly

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

no, as a result of what i said in the post everything should be crystal clear. nothing should be left to interpretation and anyone sanctioning due to opinion is wrong. this is because unfairness can occur.

Yet when advisors like csmw make it crystal clear and the claimant doesn't want to accept the facts they still complain it's unfair. You only have to look a few posts up to see the complaining about 'slave labour' when in fact it's crystal clear it's no such thing as it's free choice to sign on.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

another 2 year old moment here. if they shouldnt require 7 days and then put 7 days they are taking liberties.

Shouldn't be this, shouldn't be that.... Fact is if they put 7 days, 7 days it is. Tantrums won't change that.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

i am not saying its wrong to search on a weekend. i am not telling people they shouldnt search on a weekend. i am saying they shouldnt be legally obliged to search on a weekend.

To be crystal clear a claimant signs a job seeking agreement to actively seek work for an agreed period in return for an allowance but they're not obliged to sign any agreement they don't want to.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

no they wont. they will always set a minimum that you must do to qualify.

Then no use moaning about sanctions when they're found to have not met the minimum.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

they are not rule breaks so you cant be sanctioned for not breaking the rules.

Really?...

Refusing access to UJM, presenting insufficient or minimal evidence of job seeking over the last period, not applying for advertised jobs aren't rule breaks?

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

only because they changed the name to excuse unfairness.

Changing the name to job seeking allowance makes it crystal clear what the allowance is for. After all, unemployment benefit would suggest a payment for doing nothing but being unemployed and that can't possibly be right.