Finished Work Pragramme

donnajunkie

Flyonthewall wrote: »

They're not. It varies depending on age, whether you're single and your living situation.

you can have people who get the same money and one has excessive expectations put on them while another has hardly any.

red_devil

Flyonthewall wrote: »

While they do stop the money of many of those that don't deserve it, there are those that do deserve it.

As for great hardship, yes some people really struggle, but there are also those who are saying they can't eat yet they still have Sky TV and/or the latest smartphone. Some people are just bad with money.

They should help people out more (properly, not throw them in a WP or make them work for free) and change the way they do things so they're not under pressure to sanction people for no reason. They certainly don't need to be really cruel just because they're under pressure. However, there are two sides to it regarding the bad situations people are in. How many don't deserve to be in that bad situation and how many are there through their own fault?

nobody deserves to be sanctioned and lose their money its awful of you to say they do. People are dying because of the Tories and you think its ok?? People who are involved in the sanctions of vulnerable people are heartless and cruel. Don't know how some of them sleep at night. One day it could be them being sanctioned nobody is immune.

donnajunkie

Flyonthewall wrote: »

They're different based on individual situations. It wouldn't be fair if everyone had the same amount of actions and agreements, or even close.

its not fair to expect the same of everyone but its fair to expect more of one person than another? that makes no sense. unless someone can make a good argument why they cant or shouldnt do something theres no reason to not expect a similar amount from them.

Flyonthewall

donnajunkie wrote: »

you can have people who get the same money and one has excessive expectations put on them while another has hardly any.

Yeah, but they'd still have different situations.

red_devil wrote: »

nobody deserves to be sanctioned and lose their money its awful of you to say they do. People are dying because of the Tories and you think its ok?? People who are involved in the sanctions of vulnerable people are heartless and cruel. Don't know how some of them sleep at night. One day it could be them being sanctioned nobody is immune.

First of all, there are places you can get free food and there are places for the homeless too. Course, that's not a good life, but nobody should be dying regarding that. Plus for those that are still getting money they should be using it for the important things (so not expensive mobiles) and they may be entitled to housing benefits and possibly other benefits too. In other words, they may not be well off and life may be tough, but they certainly shouldn't be dying because of it.

Suicide from being depressed at the situation is another matter.

Second, some do deserve it. If they don't want to work, don't bother applying for jobs, don't turn up for appointments or doing anything the Job Centre says why an Earth should they keep getting money from them??? If they're that bad off they should be trying their hardest to get a job! If they're trying to get a job they won't get sanctioned.

Not everyone is innocent.

donnajunkie wrote: »

its not fair to expect the same of everyone but its fair to expect more of one person than another? that makes no sense. unless someone can make a good argument why they cant or shouldnt do something theres no reason to not expect a similar amount from them.

We've already been through this. Again, everyones situation is different.

For example,

If you're applying for retail jobs then there are likely to be loads of jobs to apply for. If you're in a specialised field then finding suitable work is going to be much harder. If there's only 5 jobs in that field a week you can't expect them to apply for 30 where as if the other person has over 100 jobs a week they could apply for then 30 is perfectly acceptable.

After so long the person needs to extend their search to other jobs outside of their field, but they may still be more limited than the other person based on the skills and experience they have.

Or for example,

You may get someone who can't use a computer and despite attempts at a couple of computer courses simply cannot use a computer at all. So they're relying mostly on shop window adverts, newspapers and word of mouth. You can't expect them to apply for as many jobs as someone who can use the Internet and has access to thousands of jobs.

Or for example,

You may get someone who is having to relocate and the area they are moving to really soon doesn't have many jobs, but the area they are currently in does. So even two people looking for the same type of jobs and currently being in the same area will be applying for different jobs and a different amount of jobs based on what is available to them.

Or for example,

You may have a single parent of three kids and a single person, both looking for the same type of work. However, the parent has to work around the kids and the single person doesn't. Therefore, more jobs are available for the single person to apply for and so they should be applying for more.

donnajunkie

Flyonthewall wrote: »

We've already been through this. Again, everyones situation is different.

For example,

If you're applying for retail jobs then there are likely to be loads of jobs to apply for. If you're in a specialised field then finding suitable work is going to be much harder. If there's only 5 jobs in that field a week you can't expect them to apply for 30 where as if the other person has over 100 jobs a week they could apply for then 30 is perfectly acceptable.

After so long the person needs to extend their search to other jobs outside of their field, but they may still be more limited than the other person based on the skills and experience they have.

Or for example,

You may get someone who can't use a computer and despite attempts at a couple of computer courses simply cannot use a computer at all. So they're relying mostly on shop window adverts, newspapers and word of mouth. You can't expect them to apply for as many jobs as someone who can use the Internet and has access to thousands of jobs.

Or for example,

You may get someone who is having to relocate and the area they are moving to really soon doesn't have many jobs, but the area they are currently in does. So even two people looking for the same type of jobs and currently being in the same area will be applying for different jobs and a different amount of jobs based on what is available to them.

Or for example,

You may have a single parent of three kids and a single person, both looking for the same type of work. However, the parent has to work around the kids and the single person doesn't. Therefore, more jobs are available for the single person to apply for and so they should be applying for more.

They don't consider whether you are specialist or not. I know of someone who is specialist who has to do a lot more than another who isn't specialist.
They don't accept can't use a computer as an excuse to do less.
If relocating your current agreement stands until you move. Then the jobcentre there will look at it. Lack of jobs doesn't result in a reduction of what's expected anyway.
A single parent is still likely to be expected to do a similar amount and if everyone has a reasonable level required then it won't be too much for a parent.

Flyonthewall

donnajunkie wrote: »

They don't consider whether you are specialist or not. I know of someone who is specialist who has to do a lot more than another who isn't specialist.
They don't accept can't use a computer as an excuse to do less.
If relocating your current agreement stands until you move. Then the jobcentre there will look at it. Lack of jobs doesn't result in a reduction of what's expected anyway.
A single parent is still likely to be expected to do a similar amount and if everyone has a reasonable level required then it won't be too much for a parent.

Do they have the same advisor? While more likely that specialised means less jobs there will be exceptions, so for them is it a specialised field with limited jobs or specialised with plenty of opportunity? Or are they looking at other areas because they have other skills/experience? Does the other person have lots of skills or no skills?

They do take things into consideration, that's the point of the meeting when you go through and work out your agreement. You go through the times you can work, distance you can travel (whether you have a car), the areas you're looking for work (as in retail or IT, not London or whatever), specific places you agree to look for work each week (e.g. Indeed, local newspaper, UJM) and so on.

Not everyone is given a set number to apply for. Sometimes they'll see how much you're doing and then give a set amount or sometimes they'll see you're doing enough and not say anything. It's all based on the amount they think you can apply for based on the areas you're looking to work and/or the amount you have been applying for.

With the exception of the few mean advisors that pick on people and force them to apply for a stupidly large number of jobs.

dori2o

red_devil wrote: »

totally disagree that they have to do it, they shouldn't want to be part of an organisation that is cruel and stops peoples money. People are having to visit foodbanks because of the DWP. worst case scenario some people have died.

DWP are causing great hardship across the country and treating people on benefits like crap. You don't have to carry out orders. Workers could all go on strike and refuse to treat their fellow human beings like that or find another job.

The DWP has moved from being a place once that helped people into work now its become a sanction centre all designed to trip people up and get them off the count.

I couldn't be part of that. I don't think much of people who play god with peoples money and lives.

Whats the alternative?

Would you give up a full time job in this climate?

Full time jobs are hard to come by as it stands, especially with a growing number of employers looking to hire for a maximum of 16/20 hours in order to keep NI costs down to a minimum.

The problem isn't with the people who have no option but to enforce the rules, it is with the rules and the rule makers.

Whether I agree or not with the current rules and regulations is not the most important thing that would be on my mind if I was a DWP employee, the most important thing would be the money coming in at the end of every month and ensuring that is continues to do so in order that I am not the one on the other side of the desk.

red_devil

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Yeah, but they'd still have different situations.



First of all, there are places you can get free food and there are places for the homeless too. Course, that's not a good life, but nobody should be dying regarding that. Plus for those that are still getting money they should be using it for the important things (so not expensive mobiles) and they may be entitled to housing benefits and possibly other benefits too. In other words, they may not be well off and life may be tough, but they certainly shouldn't be dying because of it.

Suicide from being depressed at the situation is another matter.

Second, some do deserve it. If they don't want to work, don't bother applying for jobs, don't turn up for appointments or doing anything the Job Centre says why an Earth should they keep getting money from them??? If they're that bad off they should be trying their hardest to get a job! If they're trying to get a job they won't get sanctioned.

Not everyone is innocent.



We've already been through this. Again, everyones situation is different.

For example,

If you're applying for retail jobs then there are likely to be loads of jobs to apply for. If you're in a specialised field then finding suitable work is going to be much harder. If there's only 5 jobs in that field a week you can't expect them to apply for 30 where as if the other person has over 100 jobs a week they could apply for then 30 is perfectly acceptable.

After so long the person needs to extend their search to other jobs outside of their field, but they may still be more limited than the other person based on the skills and experience they have.

Or for example,

You may get someone who can't use a computer and despite attempts at a couple of computer courses simply cannot use a computer at all. So they're relying mostly on shop window adverts, newspapers and word of mouth. You can't expect them to apply for as many jobs as someone who can use the Internet and has access to thousands of jobs.

Or for example,

You may get someone who is having to relocate and the area they are moving to really soon doesn't have many jobs, but the area they are currently in does. So even two people looking for the same type of jobs and currently being in the same area will be applying for different jobs and a different amount of jobs based on what is available to them.

Or for example,

You may have a single parent of three kids and a single person, both looking for the same type of work. However, the parent has to work around the kids and the single person doesn't. Therefore, more jobs are available for the single person to apply for and so they should be applying for more.

we are in the 21 st century and we are a rich country nobody should be sanctioned. The law actually says that people should have a minimum amount to live on.

Sanctions are a secret penal system and people are found guilty first rather than innocent until proven guilty. They have to appeal, they may in the end get it overturned but its stressful and they have to wait for their money. Lots of sanctions are overturned which means they should not have been given in the first place. The only reason they are given is to try and get people to sign off. They do nothing to help people into work. We can send lots of money abroad so can therefore afford to give out of work people some money to live on. The law in this country is innocent until proven guilty. DWP seems not to follow that though.

Jobcentre plus are actually meant to support the vulnerable sadly they are treating them as third class citizens.

red_devil

dori2o wrote: »

Whats the alternative?

Would you give up a full time job in this climate?

Full time jobs are hard to come by as it stands, especially with a growing number of employers looking to hire for a maximum of 16/20 hours in order to keep NI costs down to a minimum.

The problem isn't with the people who have no option but to enforce the rules, it is with the rules and the rule makers.

Whether I agree or not with the current rules and regulations is not the most important thing that would be on my mind if I was a DWP employee, the most important thing would be the money coming in at the end of every month and ensuring that is continues to do so in order that I am not the one on the other side of the desk.

As said they could all walk out, they do when it suits them? Carrying out orders to punish vulnerable people is awful.

Flyonthewall

red_devil wrote: »

we are in the 21 st century and we are a rich country nobody should be sanctioned. The law actually says that people should have a minimum amount to live on.

How rich we are as a country has nothing to do with it.

JSA - Job Seekers allowance. In other words, an allowance for those seeking a job.

To prove people are job seeking job applications are written down and shown to the Job Centre who then sign people on.

It's the same as when you start a job. You are told to turn up and do specific tasks in order to be paid.

Don't do a job you get fired, don't apply for jobs when on JSA you get sanctioned. It's that simple. Or do you think people should never be sanctioned or fired and should be allowed to sit around all day doing nothing while getting paid for it? We wouldn't be such a rich country if everyone got paid for doing nothing.

Sanctions are a secret penal system

It is not a secret. They make it VERY clear what you need to do to gain JSA and that you will be sanctioned if you don't apply for jobs or turn up to appointments. They tell you how long your money will be stopped for too. I've got numerous pieces of paper from the JC and WP explaining sanctions.

You get a warning that you may be sanctioned, possibly multiple warnings if you've a nice advisor, before they then sanction you and obviously at that point you've continued to do the same thing and not taken note of the warning. Along with that warning they give an explanation of what happens.

Not to mention that sanctions are explained online on the government website and numerous other websites, including this forum.

Nothing secret about it at all.

and people are found guilty first rather than innocent until proven guilty. They have to appeal, they may in the end get it overturned but its stressful and they have to wait for their money. Lots of sanctions are overturned which means they should not have been given in the first place. The only reason they are given is to try and get people to sign off. They do nothing to help people into work.

Agreed. You're totally right and it's wrong that they try and sanction people for nothing. They just want to save money. At least the option to appeal is there though and if not deserved it is usually overturned.

They don't do anything to help people, it's really not their job to do so anymore. They are there simply to make sure you are applying for jobs. Nothing more. That may be seen as a good thing though - all depends whether their attempt to help would actually be helpful.

We can send lots of money abroad so can therefore afford to give out of work people some money to live on. The law in this country is innocent until proven guilty. DWP seems not to follow that though.

We DO give money to people out of work. It comes with a condition to find work, that's all, and surely you can't say that's a bad thing?

Jobcentre plus are actually meant to support the vulnerable sadly they are treating them as third class citizens.

As above, they're only there to make sure you apply for jobs. But yes, some advisors do look down on jobseekers and treat them badly. Advisors should remain professional, it's not right that they treat people badly.