Finished Work Pragramme

Flyonthewall

red_devil wrote: »

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.

Yeah. Doesn't change the other facts though.

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

To be sanctioned for 3 years you must have done 3 things wrong. That means you've had at least five chances (1 warning, then the sanction) and been given 3 appeals before you get a 3 year sanction!

Plus that is the highest level of sanctions so you only get that while on JSA if you don't apply for suitable jobs you've been told about or you refuse to take a job you're offered.

It also applies if you left your job without a good reason or were dismissed for gross misconduct then when you apply for JSA you are sanctioned from the start.

First you get 13 weeks, if you do something wrong again it's 26 weeks and then another wrong makes 156 weeks (3 years).

It's not like you're five minutes late to an appointment and they sanction you for 3 years.

You wouldn't be dead after 3 years either.

There are numerous homeless people who have no jobs who have been in that situation for many years. It may not be a nice situation to be in, but they wouldn't die and they had at least five chances before that to save themselves from that situation, knowing exactly what would happen.

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:

There are bound to be some who get suspended or fired. You can't possibly know if an advisor has had a meeting/telling off over a mistake. Mistakes happen in all companies though and there are people in all companies that are useless at their jobs.

It doesn't help, but some of them won't want to get into work which is why they'll have been sanctioned in the first place. Not all, but some.

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.

Things in many ways are different from the 80s. Things change. More people are unemployed and struggling to find work than they were back then and so that has a big impact on the benefits system.

red_devil

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Yeah. Doesn't change the other facts though.



To be sanctioned for 3 years you must have done 3 things wrong. That means you've had at least five chances (1 warning, then the sanction) and been given 3 appeals before you get a 3 year sanction!

Plus that is the highest level of sanctions so you only get that while on JSA if you don't apply for suitable jobs you've been told about or you refuse to take a job you're offered.

It also applies if you left your job without a good reason or were dismissed for gross misconduct then when you apply for JSA you are sanctioned from the start.

First you get 13 weeks, if you do something wrong again it's 26 weeks and then another wrong makes 156 weeks (3 years).

It's not like you're five minutes late to an appointment and they sanction you for 3 years.

You wouldn't be dead after 3 years either.

There are numerous homeless people who have no jobs who have been in that situation for many years. It may not be a nice situation to be in, but they wouldn't die and they had at least five chances before that to save themselves from that situation, knowing exactly what would happen.



There are bound to be some who get suspended or fired. You can't possibly know if an advisor has had a meeting/telling off over a mistake. Mistakes happen in all companies though and there are people in all companies that are useless at their jobs.

It doesn't help, but some of them won't want to get into work which is why they'll have been sanctioned in the first place. Not all, but some.



Things in many ways are different from the 80s. Things change. More people are unemployed and struggling to find work than they were back then and so that has a big impact on the benefits system.

you have hit the nail on the head more people are struggling so why make life harder for them, by making jobcentres places to fear. DWP are harming peoples mental health.

People have to contend with no job then get all that pressure on top.

donnajunkie

Flyonthewall wrote: »

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.

yes but calling it jsa allows people to say its a payment for looking for work and it isnt.

donnajunkie

Flyonthewall wrote: »

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.

there arent 2 seperate sets of actions one for the agreement and another for the diary. and people dont have the same number of actions required like you say. thats my whole point.

donnajunkie

red_devil wrote: »

you have hit the nail on the head more people are struggling so why make life harder for them, by making jobcentres places to fear. DWP are harming peoples mental health.

People have to contend with no job then get all that pressure on top.

they actually hinder peoples chances because for me instead of thinking what is the best course of action to get a job i think have i done what i need to do to prevent them from sanctioning me.

red_devil

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/benefit-sanctions-policy-beyond-the-oakley-review/written/16165.html

Anyone who dosent think the jobcentre have got worse and don't have targets to get people off benefits should read this!

Flyonthewall

red_devil wrote: »

you have hit the nail on the head more people are struggling so why make life harder for them, by making jobcentres places to fear. DWP are harming peoples mental health.

People have to contend with no job then get all that pressure on top.

Agreed. Some people do make life harder for themselves though, but yeah there are many who just really want a job and are now suffering with mental health problems.

I do think that a lot of people fear the JC though when they have no need to. This thread being the perfect example with the OP having heard bad stories and worrying what was to come.

Just being unemployed is depressing without having to sign on.

Personally, I found the WP far worse. That in turn made the JC seem worse when I went back to them. Not that I liked the JC before then, but it was more just annoying having to go to appointments with travel time/costs and a case of waiting ages for a 2 minute appointment.

It's not a good experience, but I don't think it ever has been. I don't think there is any perfect solution though.

Flyonthewall

donnajunkie wrote: »

there arent 2 seperate sets of actions one for the agreement and another for the diary. and people dont have the same number of actions required like you say. thats my whole point.

Yes there are. You agree to complete set actions for the agreement when you first sign on. These are general.

Then you have the diary which is documenting each individual action.

E.g. Agreement, check Indeed. (1 set action.)
Diary, checked Indeed and applied for xxx and xxx. (3 actions)

The agreement is 3 set actions that you agree to keep repeating while signing on (e.g. check Indeed, check Reed, check your local newspaper). The amount of actions for the diary varies between people and will be different things each week, but they will include the set actions of the agreement (as above).

Mersey_2

emilywalker wrote: »

Hello,

Just wondered if anyone could advise me of what happens once you've finished your 2 years on the work programme, as I have heard so many different stories, you have to attend the job centre every day, and they are very nasty to you and make you apply for every and any job. I am very worried of what is to come, as my first appointment is at the JC tomorrow and I was told that it will be very intense, anyone else with advice or info, or that's just come of the work programme I would love to hear what your experiences are.

thanks

To answer the OP's original Q:


After the WP, claimants are usually given an advisor in a local JCP (who attends that JCP one day per week to see his post-WP caseload). This "Post-WP Support" usually lasts 6 months and involves fortnightly chats, usually at the same day and time as your signings. However, times may be changed each fortnight, as this advisor will be receiving a new cohort of post-WP claimants each month.


Yes, there are lots of 'horror stories', Party Conference speeches and the media focus on daily signing, workfare and so on; but, remember the Jobcentres or Work Programme providers have neither the time, space or financial resources for these to affect all JSA/UC claimants.



Post-WP claimants are classed as long-term unemployed and as such more £ has been earmarked for courses and so on. Of course, any claimants JCP staff suspect of fraud may be asked to sign on a daily basis.


Let us know what changed for you when you attended, OP.

red_devil

Flyonthewall wrote: »

Agreed. Some people do make life harder for themselves though, but yeah there are many who just really want a job and are now suffering with mental health problems.

I do think that a lot of people fear the JC though when they have no need to. This thread being the perfect example with the OP having heard bad stories and worrying what was to come.

Just being unemployed is depressing without having to sign on.

Personally, I found the WP far worse. That in turn made the JC seem worse when I went back to them. Not that I liked the JC before then, but it was more just annoying having to go to appointments with travel time/costs and a case of waiting ages for a 2 minute appointment.

It's not a good experience, but I don't think it ever has been. I don't think there is any perfect solution though.

stop sanctioning people would be a start. Jobcentres have become places to fear, you are not allowed to starve a dog in this country so why should you be able to do it to a human?

That would be a good start put the emphasis back into helping not sanctioning!