Why is encouraging job seekers to seek work regarded as inhumane?
It's not, but the current requirements for jobseekers appear to be a largely pointless box-ticking exercise that may even be counterproductive in helping some people find a job.
Not only that, but Job Centres are given quotas for how many claimants must be sanctioned – how can that possibly be right?
Three quarters of the over 65s vote in elections are rewarded with the triple lock state pension benefit handout.
You mean those who have worked all their lives, paid into the system for 50 years, bought their own homes etc. Hardly on a par with White Dee, are they ?
It's not, but the current requirements for jobseekers appear to be a largely pointless box-ticking exercise that may even be counterproductive in helping some people find a job.
My previous experiences of claiming job seekers' allowance are entirely consistent with your comments. It's a miserable experience and the Job Centre offers no help in looking for work.
Frankly, for the benefit money you get, it's barely worth it.
I have no idea why anyone would choose to be unemployed.
You mean those who have worked all their lives, paid into the system for 50 years, bought their own homes etc.
I don't know about the previous financial or work circumstances of those over 65s. Some may have worked some of their lives. Some may rent their homes. And others may fit your description. I am not going to making sweeping generalisations about those who are over 65.
Three quarters of the over 65s vote. And politicians reward them accordingly. Over the next 15 years, the triple lock pension benefit handout will add an additional £45 billion to basic state pension bill. The basic state pension annual budget of around £85 billion already consumes 12% of all government spending.
And Mr Osborne's efforts to financially reward the over 65s has been costly. While spending cuts have been made elsewhere - particularly to benefits for working age people - there has been a £5billion rise in spending on the state pension since January 2010. Working age benefits have been reduced by 6 per cent, while the pensions bill has jumped by 11 per cent.
Still is. For all the scare stories, it's still the same system as before. As long as you jump through the hoops the jobcentre sets, they pretty much leave you be.
well how do you reconcile your POV with 3 million from eastern europe seem to manage ok and are continuing to
It is simply that when there are more unemployed than jobs the employer gets to choose who to give a job to. UK nationals do not get first refusal on jobs.
When there are more unemployed than jobs it is a competition. Given the choice I expect many employers would rather employ a young motivated East European or older East European with a family back home they need to send money to. East Europeans maybe used to working longer hours in worse conditions or doing harder work and for less money and with less employee rights. East Europeans may also be more happy at least in the short-term on lower wages as they may have lower cost of living due to say living in a shared house and planning to send the money home or go back home. They may also be more desperate to get a job, EU migrants cannot claim JSA until they have lived in the UK for at least 3 months, and then it is time limited and EU migrants on JSA are not eligible for housing benefit..
By comparison the unemployed UK national maybe older maybe over 50 or over 60 or have health problems or be an Ethnic or Religious minority, they may have gaps in their work history or even a criminal record, they be of low educational achievement. And they are used to the UK standard of living and may have higher living expenses, a family to support in the UK, a home of their own with rent or mortgage to pay. And they have more of a safety net in regards to JSA and Housing benefit so maybe less desperate for work. And due to social housing being via ties to the local area they maybe more tied to a location if they are a social housing tenant, to move for work would be to lose their home.
Many East European nations have a higher unemployment rate than the UK. Are East Europeans therefore more lazy than UK nationals? No it is simply too few jobs for too many unemployed in those nations same as in the UK and same as the UK the employers choose who they offer jobs to.
if you didnt turn up for work on time or at all and didnt do the work you were contracted to do
your employer would have a sanction regime in place mine had 2 late days a year and ild be docked pay
and eventually youd get the sack
If you were late just once and it wasn't your fault, you wouldn't be sacked. If your late just once signing on and it wasn't your fault you get sanctioned.
If you were late just once and it wasn't your fault, you wouldn't be sacked. If your late just once signing on and it wasn't your fault you get sanctioned.
but it is your fault
I signed on a while back and I knew it was down to me to be there on time so i walked 4 miles to get there rain or shine
sometimes i was 20 min early so had to wait but they all have ineternet terminals so just job searched
but EVERY WEEK i heard so lazy git coming in with the usual excuses, my phone didnt go off, my battery was flat, the dog ate homewook etc etc
sorry its ONCE IN 2 WEEKS FFS
just get out of your pit, I do
do you think i like it? of course not but I know what the deal is
I signed on a while back and I knew it was down to me to be there on time so i walked 4 miles to get there rain or shine
sometimes i was 20 min early so had to wait but they all have ineternet terminals so just job searched
but EVERY WEEK i heard so lazy git coming in with the usual excuses, my phone didnt go off, my battery was flat, the dog ate homewook etc etc
sorry its ONCE IN 2 WEEKS FFS
just get out of your pit, I do
do you think i like it? of course not but I know what the deal is
You sound like you were lucky. You'd have been sanctioned for one thing or another soon enough. We have a situation now where no matter what one does, they'll end up being sanctioned.
I know plenty of people like you who thought it was just 'other people' breaking the rules, until they got slapped, with zero warning, with a 3 month sanction themselves for nothing. Some got them overturned, but of little comfort when you've gone a month with no money over Christmas.
The days of pretending it's all the fault of the Jobseeker are over, they just simply sanction people and even if one gets it over turned it creates huge stress and inconvenience.
You sound like you were lucky. You'd have been sanctioned for one thing or another soon enough. We have a situation now where no matter what one does, they'll end up being sanctioned.
I know plenty of people like you who thought it was just 'other people' breaking the rules, until they got slapped, with zero warning, with a 3 month sanction themselves for nothing. Some got them overturned, but of little comfort when you've gone a month with no money over Christmas.
The days of pretending it's all the fault of the Jobseeker are over, they just simply sanction people and even if one gets it over turned it creates huge stress and inconvenience.
Plenty of people get a three month sanction for complying 100% by all the rules (my definition of nothing)?
well how do you reconcile your POV with 3 million from eastern europe seem to manage ok and are continuing to
and they are in a foreign country in another language
so please stop making excuses the jobs are available if you are motivated to
And have somewhere you can go where the minimum wage is multiples of what you can get at home so you cam earn enough abroad to send money home to your family to live.
People already in the UK don't have that option.
Many of those coming here have a skill, many unemployed don't - adult education classes aren't suitable for everyone any more than a degree is.
we have the entitlement generation who want everything handed on a plate for them
Yes mistakes can happen but they shouldn't, especially when it's someones livelihood that's at risk
What would you do if your wages were not paid into your bank account for 3 months because of a mistake by your employer ?
This happened to me once, I had £84 for the month due to an administrative cock up by my employer, at I time I was on a realitively low wage and had just bought my first house. I had to exercise financial discipline whilst the problem was sorted.
well how do you reconcile your POV with 3 million from eastern europe seem to manage ok and are continuing to
and they are in a foreign country in another language
so please stop making excuses the jobs are available if you are motivated to
we have the entitlement generation who want everything handed on a plate for them
Exactly. Trouble is I suspect too many want a high paid job right on their doorstep, and won't entertain the notion of accepting anything else. I think that the large number of people going to university causes something of a barrier. They go off and gain a low grade degree in an obscure subject, and think they should be able to waltz into a middle management position. Fact is, with so many graduates out there, it is only those with a good grade in a good subject who are going to be competitive. Individuals need to be more flexible with their preferences, and play a long game. Maybe start in a low paid job, maybe move location to get a better job, but map out a realistic route to get where you want to go. Far too much short termism IMHO.
Its not your fault it you have an accident or bus breaks down.
They can also sanction you for being too early.
wrong you know your signing time as i said if i was early i just waited around and used the internet terminals that are in ALL Job centres have to have
sorry its is your fault its down to you to be on time simple as that ONCE IN 2 WEEKS
if it means going on a hour earlier bus then so be it or walk,what else have you got to do your unemployed you have all the time in the world
the old bus broke down if a diversion buses dont break down that often its just another in a litany of excused by enablers who disagree with people having to do ANYTHING
Plenty of people get a three month sanction for complying 100% by all the rules (my definition of nothing)?
Explain to me how someone who stayed 100% within the rules can get sanctioned. Do you have an example of this? This just sounds like desperate scaremongering.
wrong you know your signing time as i said if i was early i just waited around and used the internet terminals that are in ALL Job centres have to have
sorry its is your fault its down to you to be on time simple as that ONCE IN 2 WEEKS
if it means going on a hour earlier bus then so be it or walk,what else have you got to do your unemployed you have all the time in the world
the old bus broke down if a diversion buses dont break down that often its just another in a litany of excused by enablers who disagree with people having to do ANYTHING
So right. And I have never heard such utter garbage that if you are early for an appointment, you'd be sanctioned. I'll wager there is no substantive evidence to support this! (Other that the usual "I had a mate who was sanctioned because...."
Explain to me how someone who stayed 100% within the rules can get sanctioned. Do you have an example of this? This just sounds like desperate scaremongering.
Its not. They have targets to sanction people. You can apply for 20 jobs a week and they will twist it to say that's not enough. Sanction.
Plenty of people get a three month sanction for complying 100% by all the rules (my definition of nothing)?
Going by the DWPs own figures for JSA sanctions you are talking about in excess of a hundred thousand a year overturned at reconsideration or appeal. Just under two thirds of JSA sanctions are for 13 weeks or longer so on average that is going to be over sixty six thousand sanctions of three months or longer a year that are erroneous, so over a thousand a week.
Going by the rate of sanctions, and the percentage that are over turned at reconsideration or a appeal about 17% it equates to about a 1% chance per month of getting wrongly sanctioned if you are on JSA, and on average two thirds of those sanctions will be for three months or longer. And the sanction stands until it is overturned at reconsideration or appeal. DWP reconsideration has no time limit and in some cases can take six months or longer and a claimant cannot appeal until after DWP reconsideration.
This happened to me once, I had £84 for the month due to an administrative cock up by my employer, at I time I was on a realitively low wage and had just bought my first house. I had to exercise financial discipline whilst the problem was sorted.
But if you'd had £84 for three months how hard would you have found it to exercise financial discipline ?
Its not your fault it you have an accident or bus breaks down.
They can also sanction you for being too early.
I'm sorry but I find that very hard to believe. I'm pretty sure you would simply be asked to wait. I suspect what you mean is some have trying turning up early demanding to see their advisor - who at that time is seeing someone else - then refusing to wait and wondering why they get sanctioned if they then leave before their appointment.
Comments
It's not, but the current requirements for jobseekers appear to be a largely pointless box-ticking exercise that may even be counterproductive in helping some people find a job.
Not only that, but Job Centres are given quotas for how many claimants must be sanctioned – how can that possibly be right?
You mean those who have worked all their lives, paid into the system for 50 years, bought their own homes etc. Hardly on a par with White Dee, are they ?
My previous experiences of claiming job seekers' allowance are entirely consistent with your comments. It's a miserable experience and the Job Centre offers no help in looking for work.
Frankly, for the benefit money you get, it's barely worth it.
I have no idea why anyone would choose to be unemployed.
I don't know about the previous financial or work circumstances of those over 65s. Some may have worked some of their lives. Some may rent their homes. And others may fit your description. I am not going to making sweeping generalisations about those who are over 65.
Three quarters of the over 65s vote. And politicians reward them accordingly. Over the next 15 years, the triple lock pension benefit handout will add an additional £45 billion to basic state pension bill. The basic state pension annual budget of around £85 billion already consumes 12% of all government spending.
And the pension benefit bill paid to the over 65s will keep rising. The bill for the state pension is due to increase to 6.6% of GDP in 2016 and to 8.5% by 2060.
http://citywire.co.uk/money/qanda-what-is-the-state-pension-triple-lock-guarantee/a686253
And Mr Osborne's efforts to financially reward the over 65s has been costly. While spending cuts have been made elsewhere - particularly to benefits for working age people - there has been a £5billion rise in spending on the state pension since January 2010. Working age benefits have been reduced by 6 per cent, while the pensions bill has jumped by 11 per cent.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2839429/State-pension-boost-worth-500-year-derails-bid-cut-public-spending.html
Rewarding those who vote in election is costing other taxpayers dearly.
I'm not capable of jumping through hoops.
When there are more unemployed than jobs it is a competition. Given the choice I expect many employers would rather employ a young motivated East European or older East European with a family back home they need to send money to. East Europeans maybe used to working longer hours in worse conditions or doing harder work and for less money and with less employee rights. East Europeans may also be more happy at least in the short-term on lower wages as they may have lower cost of living due to say living in a shared house and planning to send the money home or go back home. They may also be more desperate to get a job, EU migrants cannot claim JSA until they have lived in the UK for at least 3 months, and then it is time limited and EU migrants on JSA are not eligible for housing benefit..
By comparison the unemployed UK national maybe older maybe over 50 or over 60 or have health problems or be an Ethnic or Religious minority, they may have gaps in their work history or even a criminal record, they be of low educational achievement. And they are used to the UK standard of living and may have higher living expenses, a family to support in the UK, a home of their own with rent or mortgage to pay. And they have more of a safety net in regards to JSA and Housing benefit so maybe less desperate for work. And due to social housing being via ties to the local area they maybe more tied to a location if they are a social housing tenant, to move for work would be to lose their home.
Many East European nations have a higher unemployment rate than the UK. Are East Europeans therefore more lazy than UK nationals? No it is simply too few jobs for too many unemployed in those nations same as in the UK and same as the UK the employers choose who they offer jobs to.
Yes mistakes can happen but they shouldn't, especially when it's someones livelihood that's at risk
What would you do if your wages were not paid into your bank account for 3 months because of a mistake by your employer ?
apples and oranges
but ill play along
if you didnt turn up for work on time or at all and didnt do the work you were contracted to do
your employer would have a sanction regime in place mine had 2 late days a year and ild be docked pay
and eventually youd get the sack
but it is your fault
I signed on a while back and I knew it was down to me to be there on time so i walked 4 miles to get there rain or shine
sometimes i was 20 min early so had to wait but they all have ineternet terminals so just job searched
but EVERY WEEK i heard so lazy git coming in with the usual excuses, my phone didnt go off, my battery was flat, the dog ate homewook etc etc
sorry its ONCE IN 2 WEEKS FFS
just get out of your pit, I do
do you think i like it? of course not but I know what the deal is
Can you juggle?
You sound like you were lucky. You'd have been sanctioned for one thing or another soon enough. We have a situation now where no matter what one does, they'll end up being sanctioned.
I know plenty of people like you who thought it was just 'other people' breaking the rules, until they got slapped, with zero warning, with a 3 month sanction themselves for nothing. Some got them overturned, but of little comfort when you've gone a month with no money over Christmas.
The days of pretending it's all the fault of the Jobseeker are over, they just simply sanction people and even if one gets it over turned it creates huge stress and inconvenience.
Plenty of people get a three month sanction for complying 100% by all the rules (my definition of nothing)?
People already in the UK don't have that option.
Many of those coming here have a skill, many unemployed don't - adult education classes aren't suitable for everyone any more than a degree is. Like the job and housing their parents had.
They can also sanction you for being too early.
This happened to me once, I had £84 for the month due to an administrative cock up by my employer, at I time I was on a realitively low wage and had just bought my first house. I had to exercise financial discipline whilst the problem was sorted.
Exactly. Trouble is I suspect too many want a high paid job right on their doorstep, and won't entertain the notion of accepting anything else. I think that the large number of people going to university causes something of a barrier. They go off and gain a low grade degree in an obscure subject, and think they should be able to waltz into a middle management position. Fact is, with so many graduates out there, it is only those with a good grade in a good subject who are going to be competitive. Individuals need to be more flexible with their preferences, and play a long game. Maybe start in a low paid job, maybe move location to get a better job, but map out a realistic route to get where you want to go. Far too much short termism IMHO.
wrong you know your signing time as i said if i was early i just waited around and used the internet terminals that are in ALL Job centres have to have
sorry its is your fault its down to you to be on time simple as that ONCE IN 2 WEEKS
if it means going on a hour earlier bus then so be it or walk,what else have you got to do your unemployed you have all the time in the world
the old bus broke down if a diversion buses dont break down that often its just another in a litany of excused by enablers who disagree with people having to do ANYTHING
Explain to me how someone who stayed 100% within the rules can get sanctioned. Do you have an example of this? This just sounds like desperate scaremongering.
No, it's too few jobs. Especially where people can afford to live on the wages being offered.
People can't buy houses where you can pay a month's mortgage with 84 quid and exercise a bit of financial discipline any more.
So right. And I have never heard such utter garbage that if you are early for an appointment, you'd be sanctioned. I'll wager there is no substantive evidence to support this! (Other that the usual "I had a mate who was sanctioned because...."
Going by the rate of sanctions, and the percentage that are over turned at reconsideration or a appeal about 17% it equates to about a 1% chance per month of getting wrongly sanctioned if you are on JSA, and on average two thirds of those sanctions will be for three months or longer. And the sanction stands until it is overturned at reconsideration or appeal. DWP reconsideration has no time limit and in some cases can take six months or longer and a claimant cannot appeal until after DWP reconsideration.
But if you'd had £84 for three months how hard would you have found it to exercise financial discipline ?
I'm sorry but I find that very hard to believe. I'm pretty sure you would simply be asked to wait. I suspect what you mean is some have trying turning up early demanding to see their advisor - who at that time is seeing someone else - then refusing to wait and wondering why they get sanctioned if they then leave before their appointment.