are sanctions legal

whodathunkit

Marisco wrote: »

You could, yes, but why would anyone? If we take JSA @ £71, HB @ £91 (I've used our councils LHA rate) and CT @ £25 (I've used my CT rate) then that comes to £187 pw. For an average 40 hr week that works out at £4.67, which is well below the NMW, afaik it's illegal to pay below NMW, so why is this acceptable?

If they have to put people on "workfare" or whatever it's called, and I'm not totally against people doing something for their benefits, then at least let them do something that will benefit their communities, and not big business and shareholders!

I'm sure there are many things that the councils can longer afford to do, due to cutbacks, but the things still need doing, let the unemployed do those types of things, but not for 40 hrs a week though, and not if it means an employed person loses their job!

That only works out at below NMW because you live in such a cheap part of the country. In many places (and I don't mean London) your calculation would mean that people were earning far more than NMW.

ETA

You're also forgetting that the benefit amounts are net whilst the NMW rate is gross and that many jobs aren't 40 hours a week.

FluffyDuck3

rogerblack wrote: »

It is not paid work in the normal sense of the term is why.
If you don't do it - you don't get benefit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/30/poundland-slave-labour-su_n_4176664.html

Note the elements where the government did not win in the above case have since had the law changed so it's completely legal.

Do they reimburse expenses, such as childcare and travel costs?

BillJones

ArtoDeeto wrote: »

S

I have to disagree with your statement. Actually yes it is OUR (the government merely administrates where our money/tax goes) job to feed and clothe people who cannot feed and clothe themselves..

But that's not disagreeing with my statement. I was saying that we don't have a duty to feed and clothe the OP, not some person who cannot feed and clothe themselves.

He's more than capable of finding work, he simply refuses to do so, looking for any route to make himself unemployable while skirting a sanction if he can.

Fortunately there are very few people like that, so we don't blow too much money on them.

Affynity

Marisco wrote: »

You could, yes, but why would anyone? If we take JSA @ £71, HB @ £91 (I've used our councils LHA rate) and CT @ £25 (I've used my CT rate) then that comes to £187 pw. For an average 40 hr week that works out at £4.67, which is well below the NMW, afaik it's illegal to pay below NMW, so why is this acceptable?

If they have to put people on "workfare" or whatever it's called, and I'm not totally against people doing something for their benefits, then at least let them do something that will benefit their communities, and not big business and shareholders!

I'm sure there are many things that the councils can longer afford to do, due to cutbacks, but the things still need doing, let the unemployed do those types of things, but not for 40 hrs a week though, and not if it means an employed person loses their job!

Like people have said, it's not a case of willingness. It's part of the conditionality of the benefit.
It's good for the employer but it's bad for everyone else

the claimant - who works for an out of work benefit and below NMW

exisiting employees - who could easily be replaced in part or in total for a workfare worker

the taxpayer - who ultimately pays the wage bill of the employer by paying the subsistence of the workfare worker

Sadly, there are nutcases who support this.

red_devil

NYM wrote: »

You could then apply for their job ...

No thanks, i couldnt harass and bully the poor.

red_devil

BillJones wrote: »

But that's not disagreeing with my statement. I was saying that we don't have a duty to feed and clothe the OP, not some person who cannot feed and clothe themselves.

He's more than capable of finding work, he simply refuses to do so, looking for any route to make himself unemployable while skirting a sanction if he can.

Fortunately there are very few people like that, so we don't blow too much money on them.

He is a she and you know nothing. The torys are eaging war on the poor and sick in general, this is more than just about jsa. You cant take that on board though.

red_devil

Also to the person who saya they treat you like children. They do I have a claimant commitment. I call it my pointless little notebook. Advisor is supposed to tick it but never bothers.

of course nothing ever happens to him when he dosent do his job properly. He is protected by all at the JC they are as thick as thieves.

FluffyDuck3

Affynity wrote: »

Like people have said, it's not a case of willingness. It's part of the conditionality of the benefit.
It's good for the employer but it's bad for everyone else

• the claimant - who works for an out of work benefit and below NMW

• exisiting employees - who could easily be replaced in part or in total for a workfare worker

• the taxpayer - who ultimately pays the wage bill of the employer by paying the subsistence of the workfare worker

Sadly, there are nutcases who support this.

I thought the case of the girl being forced to leave a voluntary role in a museum to stack shelves in Poundland was absolutely insane. Poundland should be paying their own wages as they are a profit making organisation. Museums need help.

princessdon

FluffyDuck3 wrote: »

I thought the case of the girl being forced to leave a voluntary role in a museum to stack shelves in Poundland was absolutely insane. Poundland should be paying their own wages as they are a profit making organisation. Museums need help.

You can volunteer on a weekend for the duration of your work placement. I understand that lady gained work now. In retail so is think experience in a shop was far greater than the museum work. She still volunteers at the museam and hopefully one day will get a job but as jobs are rare she may wait a long time,