applying for jobs where you would be worse off

Marisco

BillJones wrote: »

Of course. You'd be worse off, but the state would be far better off.

Why would you not want to apply anyway? Surely your pride is worth more to you than a few pounds.

Aye, I'm sure that will be a comfort when you're drowning in a sea of debt!

rogerblack

SJI85 wrote: »

Even sending a corrupted version of your CV?

Intentionally throwing a job interview is grounds for a higher level sanction.
'neglects to avail himself of a reasonable opptortunity of employment'.

This sanction is 13 weeks for a first failure.
26 weeks if there is another failure within a year, and 3 years if there is a subsequent failure within a year.

There are good causes for not applying for jobs - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/296129/dmgch34.pdf

See 34340 and on.
34346 - for example - covers the case where you have to pay an unreasonable amount of your income for travel costs (or other costs) to do work.

iammumtoone

BillJones wrote: »

Of course. You'd be worse off, but the state would be far better off.

Why would you not want to apply anyway? Surely your pride is worth more to you than a few pounds.

A few pounds less then yes it is worth working for but the OP has not stated how much they will be down per week. A min wage part time job with large travel expensives could mean they are down alot more than a few pounds per week!

OP I would apply and see how far you get you only need to worry if you get to the stage you are actually offered the job - then you can go to the JC with the relevant proof that you will be worse off and see what they say. It is not worth your time and effort arguing over it now when you haven't even got to interview stage.

SJI85

rogerblack wrote: »

Intentionally throwing a job interview is grounds for a higher level sanction.
'neglects to avail himself of a reasonable opptortunity of employment'.

This sanction is 13 weeks for a first failure.
26 weeks if there is another failure within a year, and 3 years if there is a subsequent failure within a year.

There are good causes for not applying for jobs - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/296129/dmgch34.pdf

See 34340 and on.
34346 - for example - covers the case where you have to pay an unreasonable amount of your income for travel costs (or other costs) to do work.

Intentionally throwing a job interview, yes. But sending a corrupted CV? Or wrong copy of a CV. Or one containing a few subtle spelling mistakes. How do they know this is intentional? Careless, perhaps, but perhaps not intentional. Technology fails. It happens.

Having been the victim of a sanction (which was overturned) I realise how harsh and unforgiving the system can be. But to sanction a person who may apply for 20+ jobs a week, simply because their CV corrupted on one application, seems ridiculous.

How will the DWP even now the CV was corrupted? Employers won't have time to query it with the applicant, let alone have any dealing with the DWP.

Obviously if the application was made through UJ I know employer feedback can be request. But the Jobcentre have no right to see this feedback. Nor is it mandatory to request feedback.

I'm just curious. I'm not suggesting the OP, or anyone else, does this.

iammumtoone

BillJones wrote: »

but the state would be far better off.

Not necessarily, I really do not understand where this idea that all unemployed people are costing the state more.

I have recently found a job :T I now get nearly as much in tax credits/benefits as I did on job seekers :eek: This is due to the fact I claim a fair amount in childcare tax credits. My job is not min wage so I suspect if I rented I would not be eligible for any help with that as a working person (meaning taking less money for the state), however I have a mortgage which after two years I was not eligible for help with on job seekers anyway. So the benifits I claimed were Job seekers and a bit of help with council tax the amount this came to I get nearly that in tax credits now! I don't personally see all this money as it goes to pay childcare expensives (plus I have to a part of the childcare out of my wage).

Of course I now pay tax and national insurance but even if you take these figures into account I still receive more back than I am paying in! So yes the state is a little better off with me working but I certainly would not say they are far better off!

mattcanary

maginot wrote: »

Think of it as short term being worse off, but having a job will give you experience and show other potential employers what you can do. In the long term you may then be able to gain employment for higher pay and therefore be much better off.

Come on, be realistic!

FluffyDuck3

maginot wrote: »

Think of it as short term being worse off, but having a job will give you experience and show other potential employers what you can do. In the long term you may then be able to gain employment for higher pay and therefore be much better off.

What happens in 6 months if you're still not working more hours or spending less on travel? You can't leave the job or you'll be sanctioned.

If you take on a part time job, you have to find another to fit around it, that can be difficult to do.

Much better for most people to look for full time or near full time hours.

Takeaway_Addict

The OP refused a perfectly normal job because they didn't pay more than SSP.

I'm sure she is more than capable of playing the system without further help.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4834973

The_ICT_Engineer

iammumtoone wrote: »

Not necessarily, I really do not understand where this idea that all unemployed people are costing the state more.

It's all printed in the 'Daily Fail', week after week. The bigots who read it, belive it

red_devil

It makes no sense to be worse off nobody can afford to do that its just the jc getting desperate and throwing anything at you.