Crazy JSA Sanction

jacques_chirac

lukieboy96 wrote: »

Well, I do not agree. And you still have not said if you would lose pay for 4 weeks, because the answer is NO you would not!!!

We will agree to disagree!! Why are so people so anti those on benefits!!

This is not about being 'anti those on benefits', it is about people being unable to fulfil basic requirements such as arriving on time.

lukieboy96

I do understand, but there are times when there is nothing that can be done about being late. Yet it seems to be ok for those people to lose up to 4 weeks benefit, but if in work, no consequences!

lukieboy96

In my area, Mon no traffic, Tues, an accident, delays over 30 mins, nothing claimant can do!!!

jacques_chirac

lukieboy96 wrote: »

I do understand, but there are times when there is nothing that can be done about being late. Yet it seems to be ok for those people to lose up to 4 weeks benefit, but if in work, no consequences!

There are consequences to those in work, just that they are different to those claiming JSA. Have you not worked for a while?

lukieboy96

Oh, just to say, I have worked, acting manager. Would not make someone lose pay for 4 weeks over being late!! We would meet, speak etc. Would not say you will lose 4 weeks pay!!!

Let me know a job where you will lose 4 weeks pay for being late.... No you cannot show this

essor

missapril75 wrote: »

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.

lol, unbelievable, I'll pop down to the local food bank and tell them the only reason they are there is to keep a roof over the heads and food on the table of their advisor, be subservient, do as your told, take the sanction and feel good about yourself. I'm sure they will be so happy and understanding.

What a pathetic attempt at defending the situation, if everyone thinks like you , then there is truly is no hope. What are you trying to say, we're all in it together ? IDS is an evil bastartd but we're just doing our job ?

What ever level you assume I'm on, it doesn't involve rationalising away the hurt, misery, and suicides that are a direct result of the sanction process. Blame IDS all you like, he needs people as gullible, gutless, and subservient as you seem to be to deliver his message.
You all have blood on your hands, live with it.

jetplane

missapril75 wrote: »

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.

busy_mom wrote: »

A work collegue was threated by a claimant this week at my office, he leant across the desk and very quiet and said he could quite easily put the pen in her eye and she wouldn't be able to do a thing about it. People think this is reasonable to expect from someone who has got the age of 37 born 6 kids yet never worked?
People need to remember not everyone on JSA wants a job, many do but those who do not mean the system has to be tough and yes unfortunately some people get caught up and mixed in with the long term professional scroungers.

busy_mom wrote: »

Firstly there is NO LONGER a target for sanction, yes there was but hasn't been for a number of years.
There is an expectation and many will say this is the same but that is the word now used.
As for the poster who was sanctioned for being 8 mins late, if this story is true I suggest yu appeal quickly because to be sanctioned for being late an adviser has to issue you with a formal notofication first. If you attend late you will be issued with an ES9 which states the day and time you were required to attend and the time and date you are now required to attend and the consequences of not doing so. I suggest you ask JCP to show you the copy or proof one was issued and the appeal if they cannot produce it.
Sanctions are effective if used correctly. Adviser and staff do have to refer all doubts there is no grace or let off their own job is at risk if they do so. No different to any other job in the public or private sector. you know what you have to do and you get on with it.

These are tragic and, fortunately, rare examples of the society we live in and are not limited to jobcentre staff. We all know there are long term benefit claimants, generations in fact. However that does not justify ridiculous sanctions or setting of petty targets. Yes the adviser does have some vulgar people to deal with every day but so do social workers, police, NHS staff etc who also can give examples of rapes and murders of their staff. We could never get through the day if we tarred them all with the same brush.

There are targets in place, there is plenty of evidence, usually they are dressed up as performance appraisals where an adviser may be accused of not being vigilant enough or under performing if they have referred less sanctions than their colleagues or local offices.

Clients are sanctioned for being 5 minutes late in our local jobcentres, if you are not there before signing time then you are not allowed to sign and are sanctioned. I think the culture drips down from the top, the advisers are following instructions and have very little time to perform a multitude of prescriptive tasks and tick boxes.

I am aware that floor staff do not like calling them customers it's usually a lot worse from where I'm standing.

lukieboy96

I just dread when I am told I can work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

iammumtoone

busy_mom wrote: »

This happens in many areas, how many comuters rely on the M6 M5 M25 or any other busy route to get to work, many people have to drop of siblings, catch a train etc..
This is not a good reason to not have a 9am appointment and as I have pointed out you have to be late and issued with a notification before a sanction. Sorry but if if a claimant used this reason with me I would still book a 9am slot.

I hate early appointments at the JC I had one the other week at 9.30:eek: I only just made it and was lucky there were no hold ups. I could not set off earlier as I had to drop my son off at school, the school does not open to 9 so could not leave any earlier than that. When trying to explain this to the advisor all she would say was if I had a job I would be would be expected to be there at 9.30, this is very true BUT to do so I would be putting my son in childcare so I could make sure I wouldn't be late. I can't afford childcare to attend the JC and if I could no one would accept him on a one off placement for half an hour.

missapril75

lukieboy96 wrote: »

Let me know a job where you will lose 4 weeks pay for being late

I never know why people compare work to claiming benefits.

They're different. Unless you can show me a job that pays wages for not (fulfilling obligations) working?