Crazy JSA Sanction

csmw

osdset wrote: »

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.

Are you an advisor.. NO... So it's very easy to sit there on your perch tarring us allwith the same brush, but most of us are actually there to help not hinder. Just because you have had a bad experience does not mean everyone does.

As for being there to do as instructed , isn't that what employment is. You fulfill the wishes of your employer and in return they pay you for doing so.

I for one am sick of reading all the nasty comments directly attacking advisors on this forum as if we are here solely for people like you to take all your issues with the department out on.

The few of us that are on here are trying to help, trying to tell people the rules so they can help themselves. But no matter what we say or do it's never going to be good enough for the keyboard warriors

Morglin

Well, from experience, the people who complain about the system (and it has always been fairly inefficient), don't seem to get that the staff have to abide by the rules and regulations - benefits all have their rules, and staff cannot just make their own up, or use much discretion.

Added to that, many experienced, well trained staff have left, and, to be fair, some of the advisors they have now leave a lot to be desired - they wouldn't have been let loose on the public, in my day!

Added to this, you have SOME members of the public, with a stroppy attitude and a misplaced sense of entitlement.

I didn't realise how bloody awful some people can be, until I worked for the DWP. :eek:

Lin

osdset

Are you an advisor.. NO... So it's very easy to sit there on your perch tarring us allwith the same brush, but most of us are actually there to help not hinder. Just because you have had a bad experience does not mean everyone does.

No I'm not an advisor and I would put the argument over that none of the DWP employees posting on here are either, desk clerks would be as far as I would go.

As for being there to do as instructed , isn't that what employment is. You fulfill the wishes of your employer and in return they pay you for doing so.

I beg to differ, fulfilling the wishes of an employer means doing as instructed by the employer within the scope of the job you are employed to do.

I for one am sick of reading all the nasty comments directly attacking advisors on this forum as if we are here solely for people like you to take all your issues with the department out on.

What nasty comments? Attacking who exactly? Anything I've written concerning my experience of 'advisors' has been factual, if the truth is nasty then so be it.

The few of us that are on here are trying to help, trying to tell people the rules so they can help themselves. But no matter what we say or do it's never going to be good enough for the keyboard warriors

Unfortunately, if you own up to working for a draconian system and defend it on occasion then yes, you will inevitably get an adverse reaction from posters. Internet forums are a means of getting problems of ones chest when the system fails to listen.

osdset

Just a quick update for those that are feeling the brunt of sanctions. I had an interesting albeit brief conversation with the person tasked with sorting out my case, it went along the lines of 'hello Mr Osdset, we are discussing your case as I speak, can you give me a few minutes and I'll call you straight back'.

Same old fob off story because as usual the phone fails to ring. And my further inquiry is met with 'Oh she has gone to lunch'.
Yesterday's attempt at contacting this person resulted in someone taking my details and saying 'I'll just see if she's available' the initial contact person forgot to use the mute button because I plainly heard the 'advisor' say 'tell him I've gone to lunch'.

It's not a level playing field. JCP and DWP staff will, and do, regularly lie and tell the claimant what they think he/she want's to hear.

I'm the injured party, illegally sanctioned and no one will take any responsibility for their total incompetence. Maladministration doesn't even come close by way of description.
TBH it's no wonder that people kick off at JCP offices.

ArtoDeeto

osdset wrote: »

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.

Well firstly I don't "insist" anyone uses UJM. Secondly, and maybe I am in a unique position, my manager has never "told" me to do anything. Yes I have instructions, the same as anyone getting paid, and that is to help people find work.

missapril75

Someone has lunch at their desk (shock, horror) and indicates to their colleague that they are actually at lunch despite being at their desk.

Telephone caller fails to consider possibilities other than the conspiratorial one.

osdset

missapril75 wrote: »

Someone has lunch at their desk (shock, horror) and indicates to their colleague that they are actually at lunch despite being at their desk.

Telephone caller fails to consider possibilities other than the conspiratorial one.

I would be happy to extend the benefit of the doubt to someone I had not already caught being economical with the truth.

When someone tells me that a sanction has been 100% lifted on Christmas eve, that the information is on the system, and she is reading it as she speaks. ( I found out the truth of that tale later the same day when the BDC told me a different story) She then changes the story in the new year to the BDC is waiting for confirmation from the LA DMA, and err actually there is nothing on the system about a sanction being lifted. I get somewhat suspicious, perhaps she suffers from hallucinations?

missapril75

osdset wrote: »

...perhaps she suffers from hallucinations?

Brought on, no doubt, by taking lunch at her desk where she's still disturbed by those thinking she can work through her lunch break.

osdset

missapril75 wrote: »

Brought on, no doubt, by taking lunch at her desk where she's still disturbed by those thinking she can work through her lunch break.

I'm glad you see fit to turn a serious issue into a comedy, this says volumes about your mindset. All I ask is to have my calls returned, and I expect to be called back when someone promises they will. It's common decency.

Keeping people informed with an update every so often stops speculation, and prevents the possibility of someone disturbing ones lunch break, I would have slightly more sympathy for the interrupted diner if the worst I was looking at was a touch of indigestion.

At the moment putting food on the table for lunch is a luxury I would like to enjoy.

missapril75

osdset wrote: »

I'm glad you see fit to turn a serious issue into a comedy, this says volumes about your mindset.

There you go with deciding only one possibility. I was actually intending to avoid confrontation. How seriously I respond isn't going to make the slightest difference to your problem, so I was trying to make light of it.

That explains my lighthearted reply. What explains your insulting comment about hallucinations? Or were you not quite 100% serious, the same as me?