Crazy JSA Sanction

busy_mom_2

My person opinion is those claiming JSA C should not even have to come in the jobcentre for the first 13 weeks of their claim, no sanctions applicable then after 13 weeks they start the intensive jobseatch.
Those claiming means tested benefit should follow a strict regime and the longer you claim I'm sorry bit the stricter is should become.

I only see those who haven't worked in over 5 years and many haven't worked in decadeds, some reached their 30's and 40's and never worked how can this be right? They see it as their right to have their rent paid have their 'dole' and be left alone, I'm sorry no. I will do my utmost to help but if they fail to help themselves then I will refer to a DM and many I have referred multiple times. I can go on about some of the excuses, some of the reasons but the fact the remains there is a % of claimants that do not want a job and the only way to change their mindset is with sanctions.

These customers are the minority and I apprechiate many do want work but there will never be a system to support all.

busy_mom_2

krok wrote: »

I think you are not understanding what i am saying.

I mean only write down what the jobseekers agreement says and no more. You have then done what was asked of you.

You are then free to search for jobs your own way with no pressure of sanctions from the job centre.

I struggle somewhat with this, I always ask customers what sites they use, apart from UJ (which we have to tell you to use)I put on a agreement sites jobseekers state they like, if they then don't find work we change those sites.

Yes do as per your agreement but why not also tell your JCP office what else you do? You are supposed to work with the adviser not against them.

krok

busy_mom wrote: »

I struggle somewhat with this, I always ask customers what sites they use, apart from UJ (which we have to tell you to use)I put on a agreement sites jobseekers state they like, if they then don't find work we change those sites.

Yes do as per your agreement but why not also tell your JCP office what else you do? You are supposed to work with the adviser not against them.

Im sorry but most advisers do not want to work with you. They just want to find any excuse to sanction you, I say most because you may get the odd one who does want to help you.

So why write down more than you are asked to do. You dont get any prizes for it.

As i have said just do what you have to, and then you can concentrate on doing some proper job searching.

busy_mom_2

Advisers recieve no prizes either unfortunately, no targets and certainly no perfomance bonuses, we are not WP advisers.

Due to the claimants I see I would certainly have a higher payrise if we did have targets as i would exceed them.

But why not show all that you are doing to look for work. By only stating the minimum you fall into the catagory of not seeming to really want to work and the staff will then be trying to work needs to done to help. Try communication with an adviser you may find them a little more responsive.

krok

busy_mom wrote: »

Advisers recieve no prizes either unfortunately, no targets and certainly no perfomance bonuses, we are not WP advisers.

Due to the claimants I see I would certainly have a higher payrise if we did have targets as i would exceed them.

But why not show all that you are doing to look for work. By only stating the minimum you fall into the catagory of not seeming to really want to work and the staff will then be trying to work needs to done to help. Try communication with an adviser you may find them a little more responsive.

Im sorry but i think you must be living in fantasy land.

All they want is to get you out as fast as possable, with a sanction if they can.

If they want you to do more things in finding work it must be put in the aggreement. Thats what its there for.

It might be different at your job centre but the ones i have been to are not interested in what you do as long as they can tick their boxes.

Morlock

NYM wrote: »

:huh: What's misleading about it ?
Do the Government want to stop the 'something for nothing' culture or not ?

The 'something for nothing culture' is meaningless, it's anti-welfare rhetoric at best, a phrase more suited to tabloid journalism, not the government's Department for Work and Pensions.

osdset

Morlock wrote: »

The 'something for nothing culture' is meaningless, it's anti-welfare rhetoric at best, a phrase more suited to tabloid journalism, not the government's Department for Work and Pensions.

I for one am sick to death of the constant reference to handouts or something for nothing, claimants of my age have paid into the system for many years, 35 in my case. 30 years worth of contributions is an entitlement to the statutory state pension which is more than I currently receive on ESA, had I been born five years earlier I would be claiming SSP today and costing HM Gov more annually than I do now.

I regard any benefit I currently receive as an entitlement, not a handout. I don't care a fig what anyone else thinks, I'm not interested in arguments about how NI was never an insurance policy, because my generation were sold on the idea that it was, and if it isn't then I paid for enough benefit claimants over the years, so the taxpayer can reciprocate by paying for me, it's as simple as that.

ArtoDeeto

busy_mom wrote: »

I work for JCP and no I do not agree with many of its processes, I do not agree with many of its systems but I am no different to any other employee, I cannot change then I use this forum to try to support others and try to explain and support.
I have openly said I disagree with work programe and I dislike UJ. I do not support all the measures and find the sanction regime can be unfair but I also find it does support those who are not actively seeking, have no intention of finding work and for many years have claimed benefit they rally are not entitled to.
I have referred customers for sanctions as it is my job to do so if they have not met the rules
No doubt many will disagree with my comments but figures are figures and I am not disputing Morlock and his figures I am just trying to put them into context.

I can't really add any more to that except to say there are no TARGETS, as I've said before I would tell my boss where to shove it if there were, we are just here to do a job. I actually love my job : I help people to find work..

osdset

ArtoDeeto wrote: »

I can't really add any more to that except to say there are no TARGETS, as I've said before I would tell my boss where to shove it if there were, we are just here to do a job. I actually love my job : I help people to find work..

No you don't help people find work, it's not part of the remit of JCP 'advisors' you tow the line by insisting that 'customers' use the totally discredited UJM site.
And as for telling your boss to shove it, really? I think not, you are there to do as instructed.

Morglin

osdset wrote: »

Hmm, the term independent review is some what suspect, Matthew Oakley works for the governments Social Security Advisory Committee, not exactly an independent group IMO.
The review mainly focuses on whether government departments provide enough information to claimants.

I doubt there will be much if anything included with regard to the fairness of sanctions or their effect on claimant groups.

IMO the whole concept of a sanction regime that's as punitive as the current one is abhorrent, depriving someone of 100% of their income is hardly going to help them find work.

I cannot think of any other instance whereby someone would be punished to this extent for minor infringements of the rules, even a magistrate would baulk at leveling a fine repayment amount that outstripped the defendants income leaving them with nothing to live on, it would be rightfully regarded as unreasonable. Yet a whole of income 'fine' for a JSA claimant is perfectly OK.

Can't find it now, but there was a copy of a leaked internal memo, from a JCP which was moaning at staff for not reaching their sanction 'targets', on this site a week or two back

But, it's no good blaming the staff, as from having worked there, some years ago, they are bound by the rules constantly flying down from above.

A bit like Pavlov's dogs - the government shout, and the staff have to ask how high.:eek:

Lin