Advise - Immediate Resignation prior to Disiplinary Investigation

Energize wrote: »

How does resigning make someone more employable?

Because employers are far less likely to employ someone who was fired for poor performance than someone who resigned for "personal reasons".

The taxpayer benefits because they aren't stuck on JSA forever.

The problem with the whole sanction system is that the dwp are essentially taking the food off someones table for issues that an employer subjectively considered to be misconduct and decided on the mere balance of probability, that isn't acceptable.



It is utter nonsense, you are trying to take a nuanced argument and turn it into a statement that doesn't reflect it as a whole.

So what your are actually saying is that it is best for people to lie. Great advice. If they want to lie, then they can do so. That doesn't mean they should get befits whilst lying to potential employers. There is no correlation between begging eligible for benefits and lying to potential employers.

I am not convinced that replacing your subjective opinion as to whether someone you have never met should have been dismissed is better than their employers opinion. Could you explain that bit?

It does seem to be the case that your arguments are inconsistent and rather contradictory. Is it the case that you believe that there should be no consequences whatsoever for someone who voluntarily leaves, or is dismissed from, their job? If so, how much taxes are you prepared to pay to support everyone who isn't in work - for whatever reason the chose? 40%? 50%? More?

Energize wrote: »

How does resigning make someone more employable?

Because employers are far less likely to employ someone who was fired for poor performance than someone who resigned for "personal reasons".

The taxpayer benefits because they aren't stuck on JSA forever.

No - instead somebody else who didn't do anything they were fired for is. Same cost either way. We don't have full employment, you may have noticed...and even if we did, that would mean somebody would employ people with poor references as they couldn't get better people.

Energize wrote: »

The problem with the whole sanction system is that the dwp are essentially taking the food off someones table for issues that an employer subjectively considered to be misconduct and decided on the mere balance of probability, that isn't acceptable.

Is it your opinion that the majority of people who are fired are fired for inadequate reasons? That's far from my experience.

Energize wrote: »

No one is talking about lying, where are you getting this from?

Saying "I resigned" is 100% truth, the employer saying "this employee had great attendance etc" is 100% truth.

I am saying that applying a financial penalty to someone on the basis that their employer said they did something bad is not an acceptable system..

That isn't what you said though. You said that they could claim that they resigned for personal reasons. 100% of the truth is that they resigned before they were dismissed. And the same applies to the employers reference.

The "financial penalty" is not applied "because the employer says they did something bad". Plenty of our members are in exactly that situation and do not get sanctioned. The regulations say that you will get sanctioned if you had no good reason to resign, or if the resignation or dismissal was brought about through your own fault. It's not all on the say so of an employer.

Whilst I am not happy with the way that the benefits system operates, the principle that everyone should work if they are able to is sound. If they are able to afford not to work, then that is their choice, but that choice should not extend to affording not to work in someone else's purse. If there are no consequences at all for not working, then a great deal many more people wouldn't work. That doesn't mean that the system is the best system we could have. But equally, it doesn't mean that a better system would not sanction people.

There are checks in place, and even people who are sanctioned are able to claim some money for food. But if there was no hardship involved, there is also no incentive to avoid sanctions. Any society that intends to thrive needs some checks and balances. You may argue about what these are, but suggesting that there should be none is a recipe for economic disaster.

Id have thought it would depend on more what was said...if you told them they were full of hot air and looked like Sloth out of the film Goonies,then id stick around and see what the outcome is.

If you said something really offensive such as skin colour or sexual preference then it would be wise to leave quickly and forgot about them.

When all said and done it sounds like your word against someone else....so what was said that lead to all this drama.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

No - instead somebody else who didn't do anything they were fired for is. Same cost either way. We don't have full employment, you may have noticed...and even if we did, that would mean somebody would employ people with poor references as they couldn't get better people.



Is it your opinion that the majority of people who are fired are fired for inadequate reasons? That's far from my experience.

I think it's an indication of the types of employment he has had.