The point is, what would they do if they had nobody else to help them? We are not talking about going down the pub, but essential things like shopping for groceries. The excuse of home delivery doesn't really cover it, as it a more recent service. What happened before internet shopping? They would simply be forced to get on with things or starve.
Giving extra money to alcoholics and drug addicts just gives them the extra money to buy their 'drug' of choice. At least one drug addict has tried to argue that they shouldn't be expected to look for work as getting a job would increase their income and their availability to more drugs. They didn't succeed in their argument, but who knows, another Judge might agree with that argument.
If a person had severe depression and nobody was there to help them, They may try to commit suicide. I have seen people with severe depression who has found themselves in certain posistions and their answer has been to end their life.
You and Evie show no signs of actually understanding just what severe depression can actually do to a person. Anyway that will be the last time I post on this thread or any other Atos thread as I find it uncomfortable talking about them considering my position.
When will it get through? It's not just about fraud but more about encouraging those who can work back into jobs. Whats so wrong in that? There is no reason why someone with depression cannot work (hell they may even feel better for it) or why fred with the bad back can't do a bit of data entry.
There are some benefit changes I do not agree with but getting people off the sick and back into jobs is not one of them.
When will it get through! DLA\PIP has nothing to do with ability to work and a lot of people being forced back into work on ESA are too sick. Another completely uninformed person who doesn't want to find out the truth just follows along like a sheep. Perish the thought people are suffering because of the governments trying to break a walnut with a club hammer approach.
"Universal Credit seems tailor made to punish any minimum wage worker who cannot find work for 35 hours a week. Under the new regime those earning less than 35 hours a week will face ‘work conditionality requirements’ that may mean obtaining or keeping part time work is impossible. Claimants will be forced to attend work related interviews and carry out intensive job search to find full time work during any hours they are not currently working.
Workers will face brutal sanctions for non-compliance. Under the new rules a part time workers must be prepared to attend an interview for a job with longer hours within 48 hours of being dictated to do so by the DWP. Should they fail to attend then they will face sanctions. Should this happen more than twice then they will be sanctioned for up to three years, even if they have children to support.
Part time workers will also have to be prepared to hand in their notice and leave as soon as legally possible should they be offered a position with longer hours.
It is clear that this will lead to anomalies. Someone working 30 hours a week may be forced to immediately leave and take up a 32 hour a week job. The same will apply to someone working 10 hours a week, who may be forced to leave to work somewhere else for 12 hours. Until the magic figure of 35 hours a week is reached, claimants will be continually hounded in and out of work.
It is highly likely that employers will opt not to offer part time work to UK workers on Universal Credit. No employer wants workers who are likely to leave at the drop of the hat and are actively undermining the workforce by sloping off for interviews every five minutes.
As ever these new rules are to be strictly targeted at the low paid only. Part time workers who earn enough to meet the weekly income threshold – which is to be the weekly amount earned by someone working minimum wage for 35 hours a week – will still be eligible for in work benefits without being forced to look for longer hours.
Therefore a professional worker, who earns for example £20 p/h for eleven hours a week, will be exempt for these new rules and still eligible for in work benefits without harassment from the DWP. A supermarket workers who works 30 hours a week however will be under constant pressure to increase their hours or leave their job."
We found a neat way round this for a friend recently, they were offered £15 hours at £8 = £120 but needed to do 16 hours, it was suggested that the employer call it 16 hours at £7.50 = £120 but they ciontinue in practice to do 15 hours, as long as the bsic rate shown was above the NMW it is a win/win, you could certainly use it to make 28 hours at £10 into 35 hours at £8 but in reality work just the 28 hours
If a person had severe depression and nobody was there to help them, They may try to commit suicide. I have seen people with severe depression who has found themselves in certain posistions and their answer has been to end their life.
You and Evie show no signs of actually understanding just what severe depression can actually do to a person. Anyway that will be the last time I post on this thread or any other Atos thread as I find it uncomfortable talking about them considering my position.
Genuine, severe, chronic depression is a crippling illness which can and quite often does lead to suicide Sadly, in such cases no amount of care, money, understanding, empahy, would make a blind bit of difference to such a tragic outcome.
Genuine, severe, chronic depression is a crippling illness which can and quite often does lead to suicide Sadly, in such cases no amount of care, money, understanding, empahy, would make a blind bit of difference to such a tragic outcome.
That is simply wrong the right help would give other options. We shouldn't just write people off claiming they are beyond help.
Genuine, severe, chronic depression is a crippling illness which can and quite often does lead to suicide Sadly, in such cases no amount of care, money, understanding, empahy, would make a blind bit of difference to such a tragic outcome.
Blimey. Would you like a ducking stool? If someone is genuinely depressed they can't be helped so will inevitably kill themselves, and if they don't kill themselves then they are not really ill? I think I've heard it all now!
Blimey. Would you like a ducking stool? If someone is genuinely depressed they can't be helped so will inevitably kill themselves, and if they don't kill themselves then they are not really ill? I think I've heard it all now!
It really does make you wonder doesn't it. I wonder if people who have the attitude of that poster will change it anything happens to them.
We found a neat way round this for a friend recently, they were offered £15 hours at £8 = £120 but needed to do 16 hours, it was suggested that the employer call it 16 hours at £7.50 = £120 but they ciontinue in practice to do 15 hours, as long as the bsic rate shown was above the NMW it is a win/win, you could certainly use it to make 28 hours at £10 into 35 hours at £8 but in reality work just the 28 hours
Aye your a canny person alright;):D
Universal Credit want every part time/jobseeker to eventually up their hours to 35 hours a week based on a min wage of £216.65 a week if you want to claim additional benefit. I can see a lot of employers adopting your "neat way round" and paying £6.19 min wage if it's goung to help people up their hours but in reality keeping everything the same.:)
It makes me despair. What are these people thinking of. Someone assessed him and decided he was fit for work. Then the DWP agreed. It is absolutely unreal.
"Universal Credit seems tailor made to punish any minimum wage worker who cannot find work for 35 hours a week. Under the new regime those earning less than 35 hours a week will face ‘work conditionality requirements’ that may mean obtaining or keeping part time work is impossible. Claimants will be forced to attend work related interviews and carry out intensive job search to find full time work during any hours they are not currently working.
and this kind of thing, will only make it harder for company's to offer part time work, so its going to shoot alot of people in the foot.
and this kind of thing, will only make it harder for company's to offer part time work, so its going to shoot alot of people in the foot.
Tbh it's never really been right that someone can choose to work just 16 hours a week, pay no tax, and still get tax/child credits, along with hb and ct benefit.
Tbh it's never really been right that someone can choose to work just 16 hours a week, pay no tax, and still get tax/child credits, along with hb and ct benefit.
Why - surely you are all for encouraging people back into work
Why - surely you are all for encouraging people back into work
You call 16 hours a week work? A family of four, 1 parent goes out to work for 16 hours, keeps wage, pays no tax or NI and is still heavily subsidised by the tax payer.
You really don 't believe that people shouild work for a living do youi!
You call 16 hours a week work? A family of four, 1 parent goes out to work for 16 hours, keeps wage, pays no tax or NI and is still heavily subsidised by the tax payer.
You really don 't believe that people shouild work for a living do youi!
I thought you didn't want people having 'a life on benefits'? Surely a percentage of income contributed by an employer and earned by an employee is preferable to 100% income from the 'tax payer'? It's hardly the employee's fault if the only work available is part-time. And aren't you being a bit presumptive in assuming that all part-time work is low paid? Is it okay if someone earns £15 an hour but only works for 16 hours a week?
It might also interest you to know (or you could just ignore it, like you have everything else) that the 16-hour rule was originally introduced by the Conservative government (i.e. not Labour) in the '80s, presumably to enable the unemployed to accept one of the growing number of part-time jobs available, instead of living a 'life on benefits'.
I thought you didn't want people having 'a life on benefits'? Surely a percentage of income contributed by an employer and earned by an employee is preferable to 100% income from the 'tax payer'? It's hardly the employee's fault if the only work available is part-time. And aren't you being a bit presumptive in assuming that all part-time work is low paid? Is it okay if someone earns £15 an hour but only works for 16 hours a week?
It might also interest you to know (or you could just ignore it, like you have everything else) that the 16-hour rule was originally introduced by the Conservative government (i.e. not Labour) in the '80s, presumably to enable the unemployed to accept one of the growing number of part-time jobs available, instead of living a 'life on benefits'.
Haha this.
I work on average 12-16 hours a week. Yet I bring in more than most of my mates who do 40-45 hours a week. Its not that I dont want to do more hours, more than the demand for those hours for what I do is not there. Plus I have enough cash to live comfortably on.
Anyway, surely someone doing 16 hours is better than them doing nothing. Many people have to do low hours as employers only offer those hours...I'm sure a lot of part time workers would like to work more. However...being forced to move jobs for the sake of an extra 2 hours a week is just ridiculous. Especially given that moving jobs may make you have more travel costs or something, and actually make you worse off :rolleyes:
I work on average 12-16 hours a week. Yet I bring in more than most of my mates who do 40-45 hours a week. Its not that I dont want to do more hours, more than the demand for those hours for what I do is not there. Plus I have enough cash to live comfortably on.
Anyway, surely someone doing 16 hours is better than them doing nothing. Many people have to do low hours as employers only offer those hours...I'm sure a lot of part time workers would like to work more. However...being forced to move jobs for the sake of an extra 2 hours a week is just ridiculous. Especially given that moving jobs may make you have more travel costs or something, and actually make you worse off :rolleyes:[/QUOTE
Why don't you read my post properly. I was refering to those on min wage:rolleyes: I expect with your generous wage you are paying tax and NI and getting little in the way of tax credits,etc.?
Why don't you read my post properly. I was refering to those on min wage:rolleyes: I expect with your generous wage you are paying tax and NI and getting little in the way of tax credits,etc.?
ATOS/government being taken to court. Best of luck to this guy, seriously
Not sure whether an audio recording of the examination would have changed anything. It's not a medical examination. Apparently you do get an opportunity to discuss the results before a final decision is made and then a further 72 hours before anything happens(ie change or loss of benefits). That may be what happens now, but as the report says, his examination was in Sept 2010, which would have been under LABOUR's rules. The statement on recording WCA examinations was in Feb 2012, over a year later. The report doesn't specify whether he hadn't LCW(Limited Capacity for Work) or had LCW but hadn't LCWRA(Limited Capacity for Work Related Activity) ie 6 interviews to see would things might allow you to work.
Strange that although brought in under Labour, the examinations are only now being challenged by the TUC.
I have heard some really peculiar stories about how they assess people, and in the majority of cases they are telling absolute lies about those they have interviewed. My neighbour was advised to record the interview, as what she will say, will not be what they report.
Don't even know what ATOS means better google it .
Not sure whether an audio recording of the examination would have changed anything. It's not a medical examination. ++Apparently you do get an opportunity to discuss the results before a final decision is made and then a further 72 hours before anything happens(ie change or loss of benefits).++ That may be what happens now, but as the report says, his examination was in Sept 2010, which would have been under LABOUR's rules. The statement on recording WCA examinations was in Feb 2012, over a year later. The report doesn't specify whether he hadn't LCW(Limited Capacity for Work) or had LCW but hadn't LCWRA(Limited Capacity for Work Related Activity) ie 6 interviews to see would things might allow you to work.
Strange that although brought in under Labour, the examinations are only now being challenged by the TUC.
++Is that true? A friend of mine failed her ESA medical a few months back and didn't know the result until she received a letter telling her that her benefit had been stopped a few days previous. She was without money for 4 weeks while she waited for her JSA claim to be sorted out.
++Is that true? A friend of mine failed her ESA medical a few months back and didn't know the result until she received a letter telling her that her benefit had been stopped a few days previous. She was without money for 4 weeks while she waited for her JSA claim to be sorted out.
No one I know has ever had a chance to discuss anything before they were taken off ESA most were lucky to get the letter before the benefit was stopped.
No one I know has ever had a chance to discuss anything before they were taken off ESA most were lucky to get the letter before the benefit was stopped.
I have appealed because I believe I was put into the wrong group but at the time I asked - under the freedom of information act - to know the evidence they used in coming to their decision and the number of points I scored in each section, I also asked them to comment on the reason why I wasn't sent to the face to face assesment. Months on - nothing.
Comments
If a person had severe depression and nobody was there to help them, They may try to commit suicide. I have seen people with severe depression who has found themselves in certain posistions and their answer has been to end their life.
You and Evie show no signs of actually understanding just what severe depression can actually do to a person. Anyway that will be the last time I post on this thread or any other Atos thread as I find it uncomfortable talking about them considering my position.
When will it get through! DLA\PIP has nothing to do with ability to work and a lot of people being forced back into work on ESA are too sick. Another completely uninformed person who doesn't want to find out the truth just follows along like a sheep. Perish the thought people are suffering because of the governments trying to break a walnut with a club hammer approach.
We found a neat way round this for a friend recently, they were offered £15 hours at £8 = £120 but needed to do 16 hours, it was suggested that the employer call it 16 hours at £7.50 = £120 but they ciontinue in practice to do 15 hours, as long as the bsic rate shown was above the NMW it is a win/win, you could certainly use it to make 28 hours at £10 into 35 hours at £8 but in reality work just the 28 hours
Genuine, severe, chronic depression is a crippling illness which can and quite often does lead to suicide Sadly, in such cases no amount of care, money, understanding, empahy, would make a blind bit of difference to such a tragic outcome.
That is simply wrong the right help would give other options. We shouldn't just write people off claiming they are beyond help.
Blimey. Would you like a ducking stool? If someone is genuinely depressed they can't be helped so will inevitably kill themselves, and if they don't kill themselves then they are not really ill? I think I've heard it all now!
It really does make you wonder doesn't it. I wonder if people who have the attitude of that poster will change it anything happens to them.
Aye your a canny person alright;):D
Universal Credit want every part time/jobseeker to eventually up their hours to 35 hours a week based on a min wage of £216.65 a week if you want to claim additional benefit. I can see a lot of employers adopting your "neat way round" and paying £6.19 min wage if it's goung to help people up their hours but in reality keeping everything the same.:)
http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/Ex-RAF-serviceman-Lincoln-kept-alive-portable/story-17573783-detail/story.html
It makes me despair. What are these people thinking of. Someone assessed him and decided he was fit for work. Then the DWP agreed. It is absolutely unreal.
Tbh it's never really been right that someone can choose to work just 16 hours a week, pay no tax, and still get tax/child credits, along with hb and ct benefit.
Why - surely you are all for encouraging people back into work
You call 16 hours a week work? A family of four, 1 parent goes out to work for 16 hours, keeps wage, pays no tax or NI and is still heavily subsidised by the tax payer.
You really don 't believe that people shouild work for a living do youi!
I thought you didn't want people having 'a life on benefits'? Surely a percentage of income contributed by an employer and earned by an employee is preferable to 100% income from the 'tax payer'? It's hardly the employee's fault if the only work available is part-time. And aren't you being a bit presumptive in assuming that all part-time work is low paid? Is it okay if someone earns £15 an hour but only works for 16 hours a week?
It might also interest you to know (or you could just ignore it, like you have everything else) that the 16-hour rule was originally introduced by the Conservative government (i.e. not Labour) in the '80s, presumably to enable the unemployed to accept one of the growing number of part-time jobs available, instead of living a 'life on benefits'.
I work on average 12-16 hours a week. Yet I bring in more than most of my mates who do 40-45 hours a week. Its not that I dont want to do more hours, more than the demand for those hours for what I do is not there. Plus I have enough cash to live comfortably on.
Anyway, surely someone doing 16 hours is better than them doing nothing. Many people have to do low hours as employers only offer those hours...I'm sure a lot of part time workers would like to work more. However...being forced to move jobs for the sake of an extra 2 hours a week is just ridiculous. Especially given that moving jobs may make you have more travel costs or something, and actually make you worse off :rolleyes:
Yup. You are correct.
I think they'd be happier for people just to top themselves.
ATOS/government being taken to court. Best of luck to this guy, seriously
Strange that although brought in under Labour, the examinations are only now being challenged by the TUC.
Don't even know what ATOS means better google it .
++Is that true? A friend of mine failed her ESA medical a few months back and didn't know the result until she received a letter telling her that her benefit had been stopped a few days previous. She was without money for 4 weeks while she waited for her JSA claim to be sorted out.
No one I know has ever had a chance to discuss anything before they were taken off ESA most were lucky to get the letter before the benefit was stopped.
I have appealed because I believe I was put into the wrong group but at the time I asked - under the freedom of information act - to know the evidence they used in coming to their decision and the number of points I scored in each section, I also asked them to comment on the reason why I wasn't sent to the face to face assesment. Months on - nothing.