daily signing at jobcentre

winalot

i think it's to make you hate claiming benefit so much you'll do anything to get off it. they made me do this, and also last time i signed on said their computers would no longer allow them to keep a consistent day/time for your sign on from week to week. there's a good twitter account jobcentremole i think it's called, worth a read!

donnajunkie

winalot wrote: »

i think it's to make you hate claiming benefit so much you'll do anything to get off it.

this thinking is assuming everyones a scrounger and could get a job easily. and because thats not true it wont work.

catkins

Kayalana99 wrote: »

Your not going to get any positive comments on here, end day your getting paid to not be at work.

So yes you should be at the job centre checking everyday.

You need to look online for jobs, send off CV's etc and you do that AT HOME. There is nothing to check workwise at a job centre.

Kayalana99 wrote: »

It seems like a waste of time but as above all those points are valid but it's also the annoyance of having to go...so its an extra push to get a job.

How on earth is it an extra push to get a job? In fact depending how far you live from your local job centre it is wasting time when you could be at home searching online for a job or sending your CV out.

AndyBSG wrote: »

As a tax payer who's working 50 hours a week and struggling to get money together for a mortgage I certainly don't think it's a waste of time.

Bottom line is we should be making people who are on benefits do something to get those benefits rather than hand them to them on a plate.

That way the free loaders will soon realise it's more hassle to sponge off the state than it is to actually get a job.

Yes, there are some who are not actually looking for work but there are also plenty of people who are looking and looking hard for work. What exactly is the benefit in making them go to a job centre every day? If they live a distance away and cannot walk there and back how are they supposed to afford bus fares (which in most places are expensive) or fuel (I bet you think anyone receiving benefits should not have the luxury of a car).


I know a couple of people looking for jobs - they search every day online for hours, they send out their CV, they go into businesses and ask about work but so far with no success so not everyone is a scrounger. One of them worked for over 40 years with no break, earning good money so paying quite a bit of tax and NI. They are now expected to live on the ridiculously low JSA and struggle to find an employer that isn't put off by their age

MoneyWorry

I have recently spent a short time claiming JSA after being made redundant after 35 years of being constantly employed, but now have found a new job.


Although it never happened to me, daily attendance is given as a sanction when you have not adequately demonstrated 15 proactive job seeking steps whenever you sign on. Just looking for a position does not count as a step. It has to be an actual application or gaining an interview. In areas of the UK where there is high unemployment or a lot of jobseekers this can be quite difficult. The attendance at the JC now is just to check these terms are being met and no assistance is given. If you have the opportunity of a couple of days temporary work, the whole process becomes absurdly complicated


Some of the comments on here are very ill informed. It would be prudent to remind everyone that a large part of the "employed" population receive tax credits and/or child benefit which are still state benefits whichever way you look at it. You don't have to prove you're a good citizen or good parent to receive these!! Of course, it may be the case that all those who look down on those who have lost their job, have actively refused tax credits etc on the grounds that they want to stand on their own two feet.


Don't get me wrong. I am a 100% behind getting people off long term benefits, but from just listening to conversations in the JC, it is apparent that some people need a lot more practical help.

tomterm8

MoneyWorry wrote: »

Although it never happened to me, daily attendance is given as a sanction when you have not adequately demonstrated 15 proactive job seeking steps whenever you sign on.

That's true for some people, but there is a scheme in the works for people who leave the work program that will make them do daily signing however many job seeking steps they've taken.

gettingready

morganedge wrote: »

You're loaded!!

Ermmm - I would/could be if it was not for my several pets and a lot of homeless ones that I sponsor veterinary care/food etc for abroad

But that is my choice - I rather do that then sponsor masses of lazybutts.



Something to read?

The Ant and the Grasshopper, revised edition

The following is the Democratic "common good" version of the old favorite, the Ant and the Grasshopper:

Remember the ant and the grasshopper?

OLD VERSION . . .

The ant works hard, in the withering heat, all summer long.
He builds his house and stores supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks that the ant is a fool.
He laughs, dances and plays the summer away, preparing nothing for the coming winter.

Winter comes, the ant is safe and warm.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

The moral to the story being: BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOURSELF!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NEW VERSION . . . (sad but true)

The ant works hard, in the withering heat, all summer long.
He builds his house and stores supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks that the ant is a fool.
He laughs, dances and plays the summer away, preparing nothing for the coming winter.

Winter comes, the ant is safe and warm.
The shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and fed, while others are cold and starving!

CBS, NBC, ABC & CNN show up to provide pictures of shivering grasshoppers, next to a video of an ant
in his comfortable home, with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast! How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor
grasshopper is allowed to suffer this way?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah, with the grasshopper.
Everyone cries when they sing "It's Not Easy Being Green".

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house, where the news stations film the group
singing "We Shall Overcome".
Jesse then has the group pray for the grasshopper's sake, and reminds the group to contribute to his group, so that he can "continue the fight" for grasshoppers, everywhere!

Ted Kennedy & John Kerry exclaim, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, that the ant has gotten rich, off
the back of the poor grasshopper!
Both call for an immediate tax hike, to make the ant pay "his fair share"!

Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity For Grasshoppers Act", retroactive to the beginning of the
summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire the proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to
pay his retroactive taxes, his house is confiscated by the government.

Hillary Clinton gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper, in a defamation suit against the ant.
The case is tried in federal court, with a jury comprised of unemployed welfare recipients.

Surprise! The ant loses the case!

The story ends, as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food, while the government house he lives in (which happens to be the ant's old house) crumbles around him,
due to lack of maintenance!

The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found, dead, in a drug-related incident.
The house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders, who terrorize this once-peaceful neighborhood.

gettingready

large part of the "employed" population receive tax credits and/or child benefit which are still state benefits whichever way you look at it.

Right - I have one daughter who is 24 now. Yes, I was receiving a ChB for her when she was younger, just ChB no Tax Credits as I was always earning too much ..hmmmm

And I was on JS for about a year myself.

All this added up in nowhere near my contributions.

I really truly believe that for working people who fell on hard times TEMPORARILY - the amount of JSA should be a percentage of their last salary (frankly 100%) for perhaps 6-12 months and then go down gradually.

I can not ever understand why the JS amount is the same for someone who has worked for many years and for someone who never ever bothered to even attempt to look.

And yes, it includes "single mothers" with X number of kids with various partners.

How do "single" women get pregnant? It takes two (every time) and that second contributor should pay - not me or any other working person.

Rant over

gettingready

As I do not sleep anyway - just to make something clear.

I think to idea to force people to go to JC every day is just simply stupid.

JC does not have enough staff and the staff they have are not in position to offer anything useful to claimants (advise, direction, USEFUL training opportunities etc) apart from another box ticking exercise.

custardy

gettingready wrote: »

Right - I have one daughter who is 24 now. Yes, I was receiving a ChB for her when she was younger, just ChB no Tax Credits as I was always earning too much ..hmmmm

And I was on JS for about a year myself.

All this added up in nowhere near my contributions.

I really truly believe that for working people who fell on hard times TEMPORARILY - the amount of JSA should be a percentage of their last salary (frankly 100%) for perhaps 6-12 months and then go down gradually.

I can not ever understand why the JS amount is the same for someone who has worked for many years and for someone who never ever bothered to even attempt to look.

And yes, it includes "single mothers" with X number of kids with various partners.

How do "single" women get pregnant? It takes two (every time) and that second contributor should pay - not me or any other working person.

Rant over

As with most parents(myself included) you are on a hiding to nothing.
What about the costs of childbirth?

gettingready

I know that would come - sorry, I know my maths/calculations etc... My child was not born here so not cost of my pregnancy/childbirth associated. I did not go to school here either.

But if you want to add cost of healthcare - I had one major operation in UK and even with that and cost of my daughter's schooling too.. very farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr from the amount of my contributions.

But hey, this is how it works isn't it? One has to majorly overpay for others to be able not to pay at all.

And generally I actually do not mind as I like to help the rless fortunate ones BUT I prefer this to be my choice (whom/how much/when) as it comes from my 8 or so hours per day.

And in my books - those needing help should be prioritized in a very different way.

Nobody should be entailed to benefits while not contributing in SOME way.

Overpopulating the planet is NOT a contribution.