JSA - Do You Have to Take Job if Offered

pennypincher3562

At the end of the day all I want to do is end up in a job that I believe I have a good chance of succeeding in - hardly a crime. It would be a disservice to any potential employer to do otherwise.

I am not a 'Jack of All Trades' that can do a great job in anything that is thrown at me...

Cheers
PennyPincher

pennypincher3562

_shel wrote: »

I wouldnt be applying for things I didnt want to do.

Well you are quite fortunate then...

Cheers
PennyPincher3562

Mersey_2

No as long as you have valid reasons that stand up - I had discretion probably once turning down a 5 day job over a week of 6 interviews for more permanent work (I hadn't signed long, so maybe it becomes different the longer unemployed?)"


That's correct.


New claimants are allowed a 'permitted period' where you can restrict jobs to your area of past expertise. I think it's 13 weeks.


Sadly many DWP staff overlook this and so you may have to add it to your JSA Agreement.

[Deleted User]

pennypincher3562 wrote: »

Well you are quite fortunate then...

Cheers
PennyPincher3562

How so, there are loads of jobs you can still apply for or send enquiries about to show your advisor you've been job seeking.

sangie595

pennypincher3562 wrote: »

I never said 'that I deserve to be paid benefits, whilst others don't.'

Actually, you really did say that. You complained bitterly about being made to apply for / take jobs that you do not necessarily want in order to obtain benefit for yourself (it is, after all, called Job Seekers Allowance and not "Apply only for jobs you fancy allowance"). And you bemoaned the fact that you had paid taxes for all these years so "you have given more to the state that it has given you" (which may or may not be true, but it is irrelevant). You then went on to say "It also seems a bit rotten to be pushed into any old job, in order to receive a pittance in JSA (basically a tiny part of the tax I've paid is being given back to me.) ". And having decided that you shouldn't have to do all this jobseeking for employment unless you fancy it for a pittance, you then concluded with "It doesn't seem right, especially when some people who don't deserve it are getting things 'handed to them on a plate.' - and since you must be the person who is deciding that these people don't deserve it and you have already said you do... so that is exactly what you said.

And now you are trotting out the tired old line of "Frankly the situation in this country is increasingly ridiculous, as people fly in to claim benefits, while those who have worked and saved all their lives end up at the bottom of the pile." which is evidentially untrue. Anyone who cannot pass the habitual residence test cannot claim benefits. So unless they are flying in from farflung Edinburgh, they won't be claiming any benefits. Next you'll be claiming it's all the immigrants fault for working that means you can't find the job you want.

As I said, if you don't want to follow the rules for benefits you are at liberty not to claim them. But if you want to claim them, then don't start out with you are owed them unlike all those others.... You may be entirely correct that some people don't really comply with the regulations required to seek the benefits and get away with it - but you are here saying that you should be able to do that too and not take employment that you may be offered if you don't want it! So what makes you different from all those "scroungers"?

dodger1

pennypincher3562 wrote: »

Hi Dodger

I've been through all this myself. I have had more jobs than I can count over 2 decades. I have personally experienced all these scenarios.

However, I still think to be coerced into a job is a bad idea - especially if it's a professional/specialist job. In order to pull off many high level jobs, you can't just be in it 'for the money.' Many companies are looking for loyalty, not someone who thinks they will work for 6 months then disappear to a better opportunity.

I know far a fact this is true, as one of my previous bosses told me 'We don't want people who are in this job just for the money.' This is quite a common theme in modern business philosophy.

Cheers
PennyPincher3562

I quite agree, however I have a bigger loyalty to my family, they would always come first. If I'd have been single probably the same if I'm honest.

pennypincher3562

sangie595 wrote: »

It is, after all, called Job Seekers Allowance and not "Apply only for jobs you fancy allowance").

Once again I will repeat I want to apply for jobs that I believe I will be successful in - to do otherwise is a disservice to the potential employer. As an employer would you be happy if you got hit by a barrage of applications from people who are not really interested in the job, but rather are trying to meet their 'JSA agreement'?

Would a potential employer be happy that someone takes on a job (to meet their JSA agreement,) then only to walk out 6 months later?

Employers want LOYALTY, not people trying to meet their JSA Agreement.

And to set the record straight, I've applied for 15 jobs in the past 24 hours (most of which I've no recent/direct experience in) hardly 'Apply only for jobs you fancy allowance.'

Cheers
PennyPincher3562

Transformers

pennypincher3562 wrote: »

I've worked for over 20 years solid, and paid a huge amount in tax. I'm pretty confident up to this stage, I've given more to the state, than they have given me.

No - you really haven't.

What do you think pays for the NHS, schools, roads, government and society infrastructure etc

pennypincher3562 wrote: »

It also seems a bit rotten to be pushed into any old job, in order to receive a pittance in JSA (basically a tiny part of the tax I've paid is being given back to me.)

It doesn't seem right, especially when some people who don't deserve it are getting things 'handed to them on a plate.'

Why are you more deserving than anyone else?

Why should you be paid to be choosy - the benefit is there to support you until you find *a job* not *the job of your dreams*.

Take the job offered and then keep looking for something you'd prefer to do.

Why should the rest of us have to support you whilst your refuse a job?

elsien

pennypincher3562 wrote: »

Hi Shel

I am feeling pressurised to apply for a set number of jobs. I am supposed to be putting in '30 hours a week' of job searching.

One of the issues I face is that there are very few jobs in the profession that I worked in for 20 years. You could normally count the number of vacancies on one hand (and of course I may not be suited for all of them.)

So basically to get my 73 quid a week I am having to apply for 'whatever.'

I really don't know how they would react if I turned up with only 5 applications in 2 weeks?

Cheers
PennyPincher3562

This surprises me. When I signed on I was given three months where I could just look at jobs in my own field, using my qualifications and on a similar level of pay. Did you not have this discussion with them?

With regard to the being sanctioned for turning down a job, my question would be how will they know? I did some recruitment as part of my last role and many applicants were clearly only applying to get their quota of jobs in. The job centre never checked to see if anyone had been offered an interview, let alone been offered the job. I think it is very unlikely they will do that level of checking so soon to the start of your claim. Although that is only based on my own experience.

pennypincher3562

Transformers wrote: »

No - you really haven't.

What do you think pays for the NHS, schools, roads, government and society infrastructure etc

That is actually disputable Transformer. You might laugh, I've got a car, yet walk over 1000 miles a year. I've had absolute minimal contact with the NHS and school system as an adult.

I have deliberately tried to pursue a very frugal life, as I don't want to rely on the state, or others.

I can't prove it, but I bet in the past 7 years, I've paid far more in than I've got out (I was pretty much non-reliant on the state, and in the upper tax band.)

Cheers
PennyPincher3562