daily signing at jobcentre

skogar

I used to live in a village. The closest job centre to that village (which had a reasonable bus service for the area (1 an hour). I haven't travelled on the bus for a few years but last time I did a single was over £4. To go and sign on from places round there would probably take you 1/2 a day and that is from a village with a good bus service!!!!! Some of the villages near where I am entail a several mile walk to get to a bus route never mind the cost. As usual they haven't thought this through. To them everyone lives in London or somewhere with good public transport or has a car, makes me mad.

donnajunkie

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. Just looking for a position does not count as a step.

this is not correct. looking in the paper, looking on ujm, phoning an employer etc are all counted as steps towards looking for a job. of course you must be applying for jobs as well. its important to ensure you are seen to fulfill whatever your jsa agreement says. doing less than 15 would only be sanctionable if your agreement requires 15 or more.

Sncjw

i hated being on the dole when i had no coice to be on it. you saw the same people every week and you could tell they been there for years no intenion for a job. i hated it they didnt even know about a jobs fair ran by jc

mattcanary

gettingready wrote: »

I think the money wasted (yes, it is a waste IMO) on staffing JC with useless "advisers" only to be able to tick people having to sign on every day - this money would be better spent on employing better advisers or training them to do their job better to actually be able to ADVISE.

I had a short spell of JS some time ago and mind boggles how most of "advisers" got/keep their jobs as NONE was able to advise me on anything at all.

Re people living of someone's taxes - wake up. Some of those people paid more taxes in say 10 years then you will working all your life and surely have every right to help if they temporarily fall on hard times.

I went from 43k per year for many years to JSA for about a year and then up again to double my pre-JSA salary now.

Why was I on JS for a year?

Simple - I would NOT take any crap job for NMW or Zero hours contract as this would block me from getting back to where I was.

I also did not feel I should have been "doing something" to get mine 65 per week or whatever it was at the time as I have done years and years of work and paying massive taxes before that.

Now - all above applies to unemployed professionals.

Please do not confuse with professionally unemployed.

Don't think you're better than other jobseekers just because of your past. It just means you are intelligent. Doesn't necessarily mean your motivation to work is any better than someone who has been on JSA for many years.


Mind you, I agree you shouldn't have to go through pointless hoops just to claim your poxy £72 odd per week.

mro

gettingready wrote: »

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?

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

So it's lucky you got a job in the end & weren't reduced to your formula after a year.

But no doubt if you had been unemployed longer, had other problems, you'd be suggesting a different formula.

Unfortunately many people are too stupid to take into account situations they haven't experienced.

And you took advantage of your year's unemployment to find a well paid job, so it's unfortunate to see you slag off other unemployed & those on benefits you thought weren't deserving.

It lets you down, would have thought you'd have learnt more.

Denning.

morganedge wrote: »

You're loaded!!

But yes, I agree completely.
I was on JSA about 3 years ago (i think?)
The advisers just look at your booklet (some didn't bother), then you sign your name and they shout out for the next person.
When I asked about training, nobody seemed to be able to help me at all. The only thing anyone could suggest when I mentioned 'courses' was a 'CV course'. I'd already had my CV done by a company. When it came to actual help to get a job, there was none. But then again, maybe that's not what they're there for?
Be better off 'signing on' online and saving mountains of money.

They aren't there to help you get a job, that is largely PR spin. There job is to administer benefits, nothing else.

You see it on this board all the time, the same people after years of being unemployed still waiting for the 'useless job centre' to help them get a job.

The reason it's not done online is because part of it is to making it disruptive to fraudsters. Being forced to come in during the middle of the day makes it a little hard to have a job.

MrsE_2

I think job seekers allowance should be a variable, calculated on previous salary, length of contributions & stamps paid in over that time.
No history bare minimum, paid in, get your dues back, for a limited reducing balance time.

mattcanary

MrsE wrote: »

I think job seekers allowance should be a variable, calculated on previous salary, length of contributions & stamps paid in over that time.
No history bare minimum, paid in, get your dues back, for a limited reducing balance time.

Don't agree,


Everyone should get the same. And that includes under 25 year olds.


Working people on a good wage and with a mortgage to pay should be encouraged to join an insurance scheme, so that they still get a half decent income if they lose their job, for whatever reason.


Financial education is really poor in this country- that leads to people ending up in this !!!! when something bad happens to them.


Unfortunately, plenty of income protection schemes are full of loopholes, which allow the insurer to get out of paying, if the customer has to make a claim.

MrsE_2

mattcanary wrote: »

Working people on a good wage and with a mortgage to pay should be encouraged to join an insurance scheme, so that they still get a half decent income if they lose their job, for whatever reason.

They do, its called the NI stamp.

custardy

MrsE wrote: »

They do, its called the NI stamp.

Who get the exact same as those who have never paid one.
Not a 'half decent income'