Crazy JSA Sanction

missapril75

essor wrote: »

Usually when workers are under such duress, there are protests, strikes and walkouts,...anything planned, or are you all just going to suck it up and stay silent ?

I'm at a loss as to why you've not seen all that for several years.

jacques_chirac

JohnMa wrote: »

Arrived at 9.08am due to their being a slight delay with the trains

If a 'slight' delay caused you to be late, you need to catch an earlier train.

nannytone_2

essor wrote: »

And I should believe you because ........? Very easy to "tell" us jobs are at risk when no evidence exists, and anyone who is unfairly dismissed has the right to appeal, and damned site more chance of winning the appeal than anyone on the receiving end of a sanction, don't these people have unions ?

Where are these cases of DWP being sacked for refusing to apply sanctions? please post links, so far all I see are excuses.

oh and btw, your daughter isn't the only person working for the DWP, other sources of information are available.

i didnt mention 'unfairly dismissed'
advusirs know what their job is, and until recently, many minor indiscretions by the claimant were let go.
if an advisor is 'letting people off' who HAVE committed sanctionable weeoea ( being late, not mettimng their job seekers agreement etc) then the adbisor is not doing their job, so that is gross misconduct.
they are not there to make the rules but to apply them.

they can appeal the dismissal in the sa,me way that the claimant can appeal the sanction, the difference being the claimant made a sanctionable error , the advisor ( if they ignored it) is breaking their contract of employment

i am merely 'telling' you what i know just as you are 'telling; me.
should we test it, and if my daughter gets sacked you can pay her wages until she finds another job?

essor

No evidence, all hearsay, and were going round in circles, back to "it's my job" again. Until an advisor grows a pair and stands up for his/her morales and beliefs nothing will change.

osdset

Sanctions are supposed to be the last resort or so IDS keeps telling everyone, but if there's no room for discretion or a warning then they must be the first strike option. It can't work both ways.

jetplane

How can JC+ advisors have sanction targets? What if all of their claimants did everything they asked? (or customers as they like to call them?? Don't know why as a customer has a choice.)

This means that JC+ advisors are having to look for sanctions and yes they are disgraceful in the way they are applied. Anyone who thinks that claimant failure is at the route of all sanctions has not been involved in the Jobseeking process for a long, long time.

It is often the more earnest jobseekers and new jobseekers who fall foul of these sanctions because they agree to all requests, however unreasonable, as they are under the misconception that the JobCentre will help them find work and will apply the regs in a professional and reasonable manner.

The more seasoned long term Jobseekers are usually well versed in the practices and follow all directions while not actually looking for work but avoiding sanctions.

missapril75

essor wrote: »

And I should believe you because ........? Very easy to "tell" us jobs are at risk when no evidence exists.....

Here you go. http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/pcs-slams-increase-in-benefit-sanctions
Use the search feature for appropriate words - sanctions, benefit cuts, appraisals, targets etc. Fill your boots if you dare.

Also apply a little common sense. Nobody gets the sack for failing to refer for a sanction. Or, indeed any kind of referral, be it job vacancy or training place. But overall performance may lead to it.

As with many jobs, there are many targets set for staff. When I was there, one of them was even conducting x number of interviews a week. Yes, that's right, someone's failure to turn up makes that target less likely. Failure to turn up on time means there's less time for the interview which impacts negatively on reaching other targets.

I bet you didn't know that.

Target reaching is part of someone's performance assessments. If people don't "perform" in the way desired they get poor reports and suffer in any number of ways including "inefficiency procedures" and no contract of employment renewed.

So it is quite correct to say that staff may suffer through the behaviours and inactions of others.

So there's your chance for revenge. Make yourself a nuisance and see the staff suffer the consequences.

That's probably about your level.

missapril75

jetplane wrote: »

What if all of their claimants did everything they asked? (or customers as they like to call them?? Don't know why as a customer has a choice.)

Then the powers that be would increase the things required. As has clearly already been happening.

The workers don't "like" to call them customers. It's a job requirement, the same as "did you find everything you were looking for" and other scripted expressions in different workplaces.

Confuseddot

In my experience everyone I have seen at the job centre has been incredibly kind and helpful bar one woman.


My friend who is a manager in a large company, not DWP, and when she grew a pair as you suggest and stuck up for staff in terms on unfair targets she then found herself on a pip with her job at risk as well. Morals and beliefs are all very well but they don't put food on the table or keep a roof over your head.

missapril75

Oh...and for those not believing the things that do happen because they don't see reports of such events, don't expect to read it in the usual media sources.

A few years ago when a visiting officer in the department was held captive by a client she was seeing, tortured, raped and killed, "you" didn't get to hear of it because a D Notice was issued.

It happened in the middle of a pay dispute and "national security" prevented you from hearing about it in case you concluded that maybe staff didn't have it all nice and cozy after all.