Finished Work Pragramme

red_devil

Flyonthewall wrote: »

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.



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.



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 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?



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.

The aim of the jobcentre was in the past there to help, you could take a card and they would phone for you and try and get you seen. Nowdays they do nothing apart from make live a misery. They have gone downhill fast. Why are they called Jobcentres they
don't hand out jobs. They should be renamed sanction centres.

I would say that they are no longer needed and that a lot of money is being spent on keeping them running and staff wages also to pay security guards who stand around doing nothing. GVT keeps on about saving money well look and see if these centres are needed.

We have to look for jobs online so why cant we sign on online or by the phone. Again a civilised rich country like England should not be stopped poor peoples money. A lot of sanctions given out are given out wrongly anyway. As said Innocent until proven guilty in this country not the other way round.

donnajunkie

Flyonthewall wrote: »

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.

if you are specialised and there are limited jobs that wont reduce number of actions required. they will expect you to do spec applications or apply for other types of jobs. or do some other types of actions to ensure they can tell you to do whatever number of actions they have decided you should do which seems to depend more on whether they like your face or what mood they are in rather than anything logical or fair.
you have to travel upto 90 minutes away. that applies to everyone. regarding the rest of the stuff in that a paragraph well yeah those things can vary but that does not affect number of actions required. one person could have to look at 3 websites while another has to look at 3 newspapers but its still 3 actions per person. when i say i would try to keep things similar i mean in terms of number of actions. i also wouldnt expect anyone to jobsearch daily. 5 days a week minus bank holidays is fair enough and as alot of people only have to do around 3 days i wouldnt be being too generous. just fair.
i know they dont usually say you must apply for this amount or that amount but as you might have gathered by now i am thinking more in terms of number of actions.

donnajunkie

dori2o wrote: »

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.

you are correct to a degree. my view as has been stated in this thread is why not use your discretion in points where you can without getting into trouble. for example if you dont want to sanction a person and you ask them why they didnt apply for a job you could put down that they gave a valid reason even if they didnt.
on the other hand if you have been told you must send everyone you see today on a particular employability course then you will have to do it coz whether you have referred them or not is recorded on the system.

donnajunkie

Flyonthewall wrote: »

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

changing the name to suit their agenda doesnt make it ok or change what the benefit actually is. it is an unemployment benefit to support people while they are out of work. if they called it bum licking allowance would you be trying to excuse them then and say well its called bum licking allowance.

Flyonthewall

red_devil wrote: »

The aim of the jobcentre was in the past there to help, you could take a card and they would phone for you and try and get you seen. Nowdays they do nothing apart from make live a misery. They have gone downhill fast. Why are they called Jobcentres they
don't hand out jobs. They should be renamed sanction centres.

It was, but now it's not.

They're called job centres because it's still about jobs. People are still looking for jobs and they make sure of it, they just don't help with it. They've had sanctions for years, it's not like it is a new thing.

I never had issues with sanctions through the job centre, it was a work programme advisor I had that was trying to sanction me. While there are far more sanctions than there should be some of them will be WP advisors, not JC advisors, and many are overturned and many people never get sanctioned at all.

I would say that they are no longer needed and that a lot of money is being spent on keeping them running and staff wages also to pay security guards who stand around doing nothing. GVT keeps on about saving money well look and see if these centres are needed.

Yeah, my local has security guards and I'm sure they've never done a thing. They also now have staff that sit around drinking tea/coffee all day because they made half the people go to a JC further away and they were already sitting around a lot before that and keeping people waiting. The centre is needed, but they don't care so it's almost empty now and money is just being wasted. Probably are some centres that aren't needed, but I think some have closed down.

So yes, money could be saved elsewhere. Although they'd still be paying them staff members, just in JSA instead of wages. Either way, they'd still want to save more money.

We have to look for jobs online so why cant we sign on online or by the phone.

Well that would require giving them access to your account. Forcing people is against the data protection act and it being optional means that it's not possible for all the JC appointments to be done remotely.

Again a civilised rich country like England should not be stopped poor peoples money. A lot of sanctions given out are given out wrongly anyway. As said Innocent until proven guilty in this country not the other way round.

Not everyone is innocent though. It doesn't matter how poor they are, if they've done something wrong then there has to be consequences and everyone is told right from the start and multiple times after what will happen if they do something wrong.

The same happens in jobs though. People can be suspended right away and then they have a meeting where they give their side and a decision is made.

That's just how the process works.

The JC say you've done something wrong, you can appeal and tell your side if you think they're wrong and then a decision is made. If they find you've done something wrong they stop your money, otherwise they pay you.

How else are they supposed to do it? They can't keep paying people until they appeal, no one would ever appeal. If they had appeal meetings they would take up time and require staff and that costs money and what happens if people don't turn up? They can't stop their payments as far as you're concerned because that would be wrong so then they just have to keep paying them. If you get rid of sanctions then people won't bother job searching or turning up to appointments. Basically you're paying them to do whatever they feel like.

Flyonthewall

donnajunkie wrote: »

changing the name to suit their agenda doesnt make it ok or change what the benefit actually is. it is an unemployment benefit to support people while they are out of work. if they called it bum licking allowance would you be trying to excuse them then and say well its called bum licking allowance.

They haven't changed the name. It's been the same since 1995/6 when I believe the benefit was introduced.

The benefit is to support the unemployed while out of work. The unemployed are looking for jobs, making them jobseekers. Hence Job Seekers Allowance.

The benefits have never been there to support people who aren't looking for work. The unemployment benefit started in 1911 and was only paid for up to 12 months, by which point you were expected to have found a job (so you'd have to be job searching while on the benefit to find a job within 12 months).

There was then The Unemployment Insurance Act of March 1921 which introduced a 'seeking work' test. That required claimants to be actively seeking work and willing to accept employment paying a fair wage. In other words, benefits were paid to jobseekers and you were expected to be looking for work, just as you are now.

It's called JSA because they're paying you an allowance to do that. If it were called bum licking allowance I'd be very worried, as would many. I'm not sure what excuse you think I'm trying to make, I simply explained that it's called JSA for a reason and it makes perfect sense for it to be called that and for people to have to search for a job to get it as that is what you're supposed to be doing when unemployed.

Flyonthewall

donnajunkie wrote: »

if you are specialised and there are limited jobs that wont reduce number of actions required. they will expect you to do spec applications or apply for other types of jobs. or do some other types of actions to ensure they can tell you to do whatever number of actions they have decided you should do which seems to depend more on whether they like your face or what mood they are in rather than anything logical or fair.
you have to travel upto 90 minutes away. that applies to everyone. regarding the rest of the stuff in that a paragraph well yeah those things can vary but that does not affect number of actions required. one person could have to look at 3 websites while another has to look at 3 newspapers but its still 3 actions per person. when i say i would try to keep things similar i mean in terms of number of actions. i also wouldnt expect anyone to jobsearch daily. 5 days a week minus bank holidays is fair enough and as alot of people only have to do around 3 days i wouldnt be being too generous. just fair.
i know they dont usually say you must apply for this amount or that amount but as you might have gathered by now i am thinking more in terms of number of actions.

Actions are things you do in the agreement and things you do and applications for the job diary. For the agreement you agree on a few set actions. E.g. check xxx site daily, send out 1 spec letter a week and check xxx newspaper weekly. So everyone should have the same number of actions for that.

For the job diary, some people (for example) will have one action of checking shop windows, a few for checking specific well known job sites, one for checking a newspaper, some for sending X number of spec letters out and X number for the applications.

If you are looking for a specialised job then you probably won't be going around shops, there may be less sites that advertise such jobs, they may never appear in newspaper and there may not be that many companies to send letters to. If there are less jobs to apply for then they'll be applying for less and so writing down less.

Therefore they may have less actions for the diary as actions include the applications.

Most advisors won't check you're applying for jobs daily. It's more about the amount within the week/two weeks than the fact you've applied for jobs each day.

red_devil

Flyonthewall wrote: »

It was, but now it's not.

They're called job centres because it's still about jobs. People are still looking for jobs and they make sure of it, they just don't help with it. They've had sanctions for years, it's not like it is a new thing.

I never had issues with sanctions through the job centre, it was a work programme advisor I had that was trying to sanction me. While there are far more sanctions than there should be some of them will be WP advisors, not JC advisors, and many are overturned and many people never get sanctioned at all.



Yeah, my local has security guards and I'm sure they've never done a thing. They also now have staff that sit around drinking tea/coffee all day because they made half the people go to a JC further away and they were already sitting around a lot before that and keeping people waiting. The centre is needed, but they don't care so it's almost empty now and money is just being wasted. Probably are some centres that aren't needed, but I think some have closed down.

So yes, money could be saved elsewhere. Although they'd still be paying them staff members, just in JSA instead of wages. Either way, they'd still want to save more money.



Well that would require giving them access to your account. Forcing people is against the data protection act and it being optional means that it's not possible for all the JC appointments to be done remotely.



Not everyone is innocent though. It doesn't matter how poor they are, if they've done something wrong then there has to be consequences and everyone is told right from the start and multiple times after what will happen if they do something wrong.

The same happens in jobs though. People can be suspended right away and then they have a meeting where they give their side and a decision is made.

That's just how the process works.

The JC say you've done something wrong, you can appeal and tell your side if you think they're wrong and then a decision is made. If they find you've done something wrong they stop your money, otherwise they pay you.

How else are they supposed to do it? They can't keep paying people until they appeal, no one would ever appeal. If they had appeal meetings they would take up time and require staff and that costs money and what happens if people don't turn up? They can't stop their payments as far as you're concerned because that would be wrong so then they just have to keep paying them. If you get rid of sanctions then people won't bother job searching or turning up to appointments. Basically you're paying them to do whatever they feel like.

They may have always had sanctions but firstly they have risen in number and include disabled people and people with children. It is common knowledge that government puts pressure on jobcentres to sanction people. Whistleblowers have spoken out. There is a lot of corruption in the DWP.

Also now they can be given for 3 years. 3 years you would be dead by then?:eek:

jobcentre staff and staff at the providers make mistakes there is a lot of incompetence by them yet they never get stopped their wages. Demands for foodbanks have risen since sanctions got worse. It dosent help people into work either its mean and cruel.:mad:

You are supposed to be entitled to money by law, you are unemployed you have no money coming in. In the eighties you went to sign on and you were given your benefit, there were no stupid workfare schemes or sanctions or having to prove what you had done to look for work. Jobcentres were actually helpful too.

You were out of work and you got money to live on. That's how it should still be. Everything has changed and not for the better sadly. The Conservative Government wont be happy until nobody is claiming anything and everyone on benefits is dead. Lovely way to treat the poor people of their country while sending money abroad.

red_devil

donnajunkie wrote: »

changing the name to suit their agenda doesnt make it ok or change what the benefit actually is. it is an unemployment benefit to support people while they are out of work. if they called it bum licking allowance would you be trying to excuse them then and say well its called bum licking allowance.

I totally agree they changed the name to suit themselves. Its always been known as being on the dole or on unemployment benefit. They changed the name so they can come down harder on people.

Said before you are supposed to by law be given a basic amount to live on. Its not much anyway.

Flyonthewall

red_devil wrote: »

I totally agree they changed the name to suit themselves. Its always been known as being on the dole or on unemployment benefit. They changed the name so they can come down harder on people.

Said before you are supposed to by law be given a basic amount to live on. Its not much anyway.

Flyonthewall wrote: »

They haven't changed the name. It's been the same since 1995/6 when I believe the benefit was introduced.

As the rest of the post I quoted says, it's always been the same even when the benefit you could claim was the unemployment benefit. They used to have a test to make sure you were searching for work and it used to only be for 12 months originally - they don't have that now, so if anything it was harder back then. If you hadn't found work after 12 months you didn't get a penny off them again, that's far worse than any sanction.

"On the dole" was never the official name, it's just what people used to refer to it as.