Advise - Immediate Resignation prior to Disiplinary Investigation

Comms69

Energize wrote: »

For a multitude of reasons, firstly we are a civilized society where we shouldn't let people starve and go homeless because of one bad incident at work, secondly because that same person has been supporting everyone else by paying taxes, and thirdly because misconduct is whatever the employer decides it is and decides it on a balance of probabilities which means that entirely innocent people fall victim to the sanction system.

Plus many economists have predicted that a universal benefit with no qualifiers like a negative income tax is actually cheaper than our system of having job centres and restricting benefits with sanctions and employing tens of thousands of people to check up on peoples work searches etc.

What's so good about universal benefits?


Let's say that hypothetically it's cheaper (it isn't in the medium to long term), why is it such a good thing?

Chrysalis

Energize wrote: »

I completely agree that it shouldn't matter whether or not someone has paid into the system in a developed society, but in the face of an unsympathetic attitude I felt the need to put across the fact that the op has been paying taxes and is not some sponge on society undeserving of support.

It used to be that those with enough paid NI would get favourable treatment on benefits. Including skipping financial checks, meaning a millionaire could claim NI related benefits as there is no check of savings etc. For JSA, NI claimants used to get much less hassle over work related activities, and on ESA NI WRAG claimants dont have to be referred to the work programme. However I think the checks that look at "how" you lost your job I think are the same even if you have paid sufficient NI.

The OPs situation is a lose-lose situation and I dont know what I would do.

I once got sacked from a job with claimed "gross misconduct" and i was never told what the misconduct was other than "the manager is not happy with your work". The manager didnt even speak to me about it, I just got pulled up by the agency manager one day and was escorted off the premises. However I do have a theory as to what happened. In my case there was a sort of assistant to the manager, the person wasnt a manager, was on the same pay system as myself (low basic pay but bonus paid for hitting targets), but was put in a position of trust by the manager to hand out work to the team and effectively supervise us. He instead used to hand out scraps but kept most of the work to himself so he could get the bonus on his wages. I once asked him about it in private, he didnt like it, and this so called gross misconduct happened 2 days later.

After I got home, I had a text from one of my colleagues asking what happened as he thought it was all weird, I wasnt even allowed to collect my coat from my chair, so I told him, and then he had told me others had been treated the same as well in the past, people just been abruptly sacked. I then researched and found a place to ring in relation to wrong dismissal cases, and had a conversation with them, in my case they said it was not unfair dismissal, but it was wrongful dismissal, they rang the company and got back to me, they said themselves it was very weird, and the company was unable to explain to them the gross misconduct, as gross misconduct could not be proved they were required to give me notice which they failed to do, they were not willing for me to work out my notice so agreed to just pay me the missing wages for the notice without me going to work for it.

End of the day a company can sack you for whatever reason, I was never going to get my job back, but at least I made them know they should have followed a correct procedure and got wages out of them. After that experience I learnt to be careful in how I treat any superiors I have as clearly its not just things like punctuality and how good you at your job but also maintaining working relationships. I eventually just started my own business tho so my only boss is my clients.

Chrysalis

Comms69 wrote: »

What's so good about universal benefits?


Let's say that hypothetically it's cheaper (it isn't in the medium to long term), why is it such a good thing?

People need to stop thinking about things like "cost".

Giving individuals unconditional income is a great thing, not just for human rights, but for the economy itself. People with money will spend it, especially if they poor, they will spend all of it. Spent money is funnelled back into shops etc., so jobs are preserved, businesses stay alive, more tax gets paid and so forth. Its all a positive.

Sadly the public has been trained into thinking that things like social security are a drain on the economy thats untenable. This has led to the kind of thoughts brought up in this thread about been undeserving etc. They couldnt be more wrong.

Comms69

No-one has trained me, tyvm. I don't believe that state support should be as wide or as long lasting as it currently is.


I don't agree with social benefits as a lifestyle. Or in many cases social benefits at all. I think people should stand on their own two feet wherever possible.

Chrysalis

Comms69 wrote: »

No-one has trained me, tyvm. I don't believe that state support should be as wide or as long lasting as it currently is.


I don't agree with social benefits as a lifestyle. Or in many cases social benefits at all. I think people should stand on their own two feet wherever possible.

You want us back in medieval times then bud?

Comms69

Chrysalis wrote: »

You want us back in medieval times then bud?

Why do you say that?


I don't see whats so fundamentally wrong with expecting people to look out for themselves?

Chrysalis

Because medieval times is what we had when you had no state as such, and people fended for themselves. People had wars for food and land, the weak just died. Houses got burned down. Great times right.

What your post suggested just blew me away with how unrealistic it is.

So someone has no income and they have to fend for themselves, what do you think they will do? they will rob or whatever they need to do to survive.

Or do you think the moment someone loses a job for whatever reason they can walk into a new one 5 mins later with no gap in income?

There is a lot wrong in thinking everyone can do everything themselves with no standing together as a community. Your idea also promotes a unhealthy situation where you have a group of individuals just looking after #1 and not thinking about society as a whole, its a very unhealthy way of going about things.

Comms69

Chrysalis wrote: »

Because medieval times is what we had when you had no state as such, and people fended for themselves. People had wars for food and land, the weak just died. Houses got burned down. Great times right. - But I didn't say that? So why are you putting words in my mouth?

What your post suggested just blew me away with how unrealistic it is. - perhaps you should see someone about that

So someone has no income and they have to fend for themselves, what do you think they will do? they will rob or whatever they need to do to survive. - And then they'll be punished. Choose to work hard, educate yourself, improve yourself and your position, or turn to crime and spend your life in and out of prison.

Or do you think the moment someone loses a job for whatever reason they can walk into a new one 5 mins later with no gap in income? - Im sure sometimes that happens, other times not so much. Perhaps saving would be a good idea?

There is a lot wrong in thinking everyone can do everything themselves with no standing together as a community. Your idea also promotes a unhealthy situation where you have a group of individuals just looking after #1 and not thinking about society as a whole, its a very unhealthy way of going about things.

I care about my own. They are the priority, not you, not your neighbour, not mrs miggins down the road.


I don't want anything bad to happen to anyone. But my priority will always be my family.

Chrysalis

I think you live in some kind of euphoria where there is no problems and people are always in control of their destiny.

The real world isnt like that, its all I can say really.

You know what you said, you didnt say its a priority, you said simply enough that people should only have their own two feet to stand on when they are not working.

Comms69

Chrysalis wrote: »

I think you live in some kind of euphoria where there is no problems and people are always in control of their destiny.

The real world isnt like that, its all I can say really.

You know what you said, you didnt say its a priority, you said simply enough that people should only have their own two feet to stand on when they are not working.

No there are plenty of problems, just your problems are not my problems.


No I said- direct quote:
I don't agree with social benefits as a lifestyle. Or in many cases social benefits at all. I think people should stand on their own two feet wherever possible.