MY JSA SUSPENDED AGAIN

[KevMc]

Your opening words "In theory" say it all I'm afraid. It would simply never happen in our bureaucracy. There would be rich pickings to be made.

 

I agree we have the necessary skill base.

 

And that is the problem ... bureaucracy, that and inertia. But we have a massive bureaucracy that keeps the unemployed servile by threatening to sanction them, why is there no appetite from a politician to use that resource to benefit society?

 

As I said before our politicians are all too lazy and unimaginative (unless making expenses claims). Even the party leaders who are supposed to set an example to the country care more about appearance and scoring points in schoolboy level debates than actually doing anything productive.

[Guest]

Snip:

I wouldn't claim that either of the sanctions are universal, or even common.

 

 

We agree then.

[Higgs]

And that is the problem ... bureaucracy, that and inertia. But we have a massive bureaucracy that keeps the unemployed servile by threatening to sanction them, why is there no appetite from a politician to use that resource to benefit society?

 

As I said before our politicians are all too lazy and unimaginative (unless making expenses claims). Even the party leaders who are supposed to set an example to the country care more about appearance and scoring points in schoolboy level debates than actually doing anything productive.

 

I think government has lost the initiative and the market rules. The thought that industry should benefit society has, I think, been well and truely buried.

[Guest]

And that is the problem ... bureaucracy, that and inertia. But we have a massive bureaucracy that keeps the unemployed servile by threatening to sanction them, why is there no appetite from a politician to use that resource to benefit society?

 

As I said before our politicians are all too lazy and unimaginative (unless making expenses claims). Even the party leaders who are supposed to set an example to the country care more about appearance and scoring points in schoolboy level debates than actually doing anything productive.

Now we agree. It suits the man to have unemployment. When the time is right (ie there is money to be made) the figures will drop dramatically. There will always be a base level of unemployment for many reasons.

 

Edited to add: The real reason for bureaucracy of course is that it is a big earner.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Guest

[Barry]

In theory why couldn't all that be done by people currently on JSA -

 

because they are supposed to be spending all their time finding work - not having it found for them

[KevMc]

because they are supposed to be spending all their time finding work - not having it found for them

 

apart from the time that they are required to attend compulsory free work sessions training

[FORTUNATA]

"Regardless of how minimal state benefits are, they are paid on condition that you actively seek work, and that you are seen to be doing so."

 

Correct. That is the law. So, why was my claim terminated in legal terms? I had another job reply letter today that thanked me for applying but stated I'd been unsuccessful due to an overwhelming number of applications.

Absolutely I can prove I'm actively seeking and available for work. I kept records to that effect.

My claim was terminated not due to refusal to work or apply but for not attending an appointment. It had no bearing on my actual employment situation and no means of legally proving I'm refusing to keep my side of the agreement.

It goes to the terrain of intent. Did I deliberatly miss the appointment? Or was it failure of communication. It could even have been soething as simple as a flat tyre, illness or any unforseen circumstance.

 

 

 

I wouldn't claim that either of the sanctions are universal, or even common.

 

However, both are real for some people.

 

The sanction of not being allowed to work is usually applied in low skill production line environments, where full staffing is critical, and where any shortage of staff at the start of the shift needs to be fixed with casual/agency staff. If somebody isn't there on time, a replacement will have been employed for the shift.

 

The penalty is one that I have seen operating in the OP's industry (security), and applies if you fail to turn in or fail to phone in sick at least 4 hours before your shift starts (I actually know of somebody who had a heart attack 2 hours before his shift started, and who was penalised in this way).

 

Regardless of how minimal state benefits are, they are paid on condition that you actively seek work, and that you are seen to be doing so.

[mrsmelly]

"Regardless of how minimal state benefits are, they are paid on condition that you actively seek work, and that you are seen to be doing so."

 

Correct. That is the law. So, why was my claim terminated in legal terms? I had another job reply letter today that thanked me for applying but stated I'd been unsuccessful due to an overwhelming number of applications.

Absolutely I can prove I'm actively seeking and available for work. I kept records to that effect.

My claim was terminated not due to refusal to work or apply but for not attending an appointment. It had no bearing on my actual employment situation and no means of legally proving I'm refusing to keep my side of the agreement.

It goes to the terrain of intent. Did I deliberatly miss the appointment? Or was it failure of communication. It could even have been soething as simple as a flat tyre, illness or any unforseen circumstance.

 

 

Hi mate

 

This thread could run for ever. Now I dont know your personal circumstances but if you are relatively fit and without medical problems rather than spending hours trying to get measly JSA why not do what I got my grandson to do ?

He lost his job in a pub and whinged about this that and the other for a few weeks so I said have you seen the proliferation of mainly FOREINGN workers who now wash by hand cars ? He of course said he had I told him to borrow a tenner from his mum which he did and bought some basic car wash stuff and borrowed a bucket etc which he did. My daughter has her own haidressing salon with a private car park at the front and a couple of other shops there so he put a blackboard sign up at a fiver a wash per car. Now it aint rocket science and he only averaged 2 cars an hour for the first couple of days but that has moved along quite considerably. Do the sums at say only ever 2 cars an hour against JSA or indeed basic minimum wage. I know not everyone has a spare car park but a bit of initiative with a local pub/garden centre etc etc will always come up trumps. Give it a try its also far better for self esteem making your own money however its done rather than JSA.

 

Tim

[mayalld]

"Regardless of how minimal state benefits are, they are paid on condition that you actively seek work, and that you are seen to be doing so."

 

Correct. That is the law. So, why was my claim terminated in legal terms? I had another job reply letter today that thanked me for applying but stated I'd been unsuccessful due to an overwhelming number of applications.

Absolutely I can prove I'm actively seeking and available for work. I kept records to that effect.

My claim was terminated not due to refusal to work or apply but for not attending an appointment. It had no bearing on my actual employment situation and no means of legally proving I'm refusing to keep my side of the agreement.

It goes to the terrain of intent. Did I deliberatly miss the appointment? Or was it failure of communication. It could even have been soething as simple as a flat tyre, illness or any unforseen circumstance.

 

Fairness demands that the tests of whether you are actively seeking work are objective.

 

In order to avoid arbitrary decisions, there must be absolutely clear measures as to what constitutes actively seeking work, and being available for work.

 

One measure of being available for work is whether you turn up for an appointment. If you don't turn up to an appointment, it creates an assumption that you are not there because you are doing something else, and that you are consequently NOT available for work.

[FORTUNATA]

Ali was a great man. I don't think you understand what Ali was fighting against and the courage it took. He was essentially proud of his African heritage and resented being directed towards the back seat of a bus on the basis of being "second class".

Another point about Ali is he was an oustanding athlete but also had empathy with the downtrodden, surbuban outcasts he wanted to represent.

Ali's refusal to fight in Vietnam wasn't about cowardice but principle - a value that has almost died in this country where most people simply find it easier to "go along with the majority." There was no beef with the Viet Cong because these were people fighting their own particular struggle agaisnt imperialists and the V.C had never enslaved Africans.

For his stand, Ali was loathed in his country. Even worse, accused of being a coward.

What usually always happens in such cases is people like Ali are proven to be right. Vietnam turned out to be a disaster and Ali was soon invited to give talks at uni campuses and rallies.

Finally his licence to fight was returned. It was brought to attention by Ali's lawyers that even rapists and murderers weren't deprived of the right to earn an income.

The fight against George Foreman in Zaire was symbolic. Ali represented the downtrodden social outcasts whereas Foreman was a puppet for the State.

Nope, I'd never compare myself with Ali. He was the greatest but I'm the latest (at turning up for appointments).

His book is dedicated to everyone who makes a stand on the basis of principle.

 

Muhammad Ali was wrong to dodge the draft, in the eyes of US law, and was fined and sentenced to 5 years in prison.

 

3 years of expensive lawyering later and the sentence was overturned on appeal.

 

Ghandi was imprisoned 5 times and assassinated for his beliefs and actions.

 

If you don't agree, make a stand but be prepared to face the consequences of your actions, just like Ghandi.

[Higgs]

Sorry about this Fortunata - but, would you mind typing below the quote. Just a small thing, but it helps. The quote is where you're coming from. It seems a little out of the routine to have the quote follow your response.

 

I'm not really a pedant, can't afford to be.

 

Have you ever seen that game where you're given the answer and you have to guess what the question is - it's a bit like that.

 

Don't worry, I can stand on my head. There are more ways to cat a skin than one.

[FORTUNATA]

I think this current Government is engaging in a game of bluff. Fact is the Government has signed up to a document that guarantees a very basic set of fundamental rights to all E.U. citizens. Some people on the forum may not like that fact but the fact remains we do now have a very basic constitution.

There have to be rules otherwise we descend into anarchy. Such as working rights and a minimum wage - the minimum wage was opposed by the Tories anway since they seek a cheap pool of labour. It also suits the Tories to create fear in the workplace so people will accept anything so as to avoid being kicked around by the system..

The real facts are: Anyone who finds his or herself out of work but agrees to seek work is allowed a very basic amount of money as a form of social protection from extreme poverty. To be disqualified from that right requires actual refusal to work. However, the job centre has to provide good evidence this is the fact. This may be, for example, someone who gives up paid employment, "refuses" to attend a job interview or clearly doesn't adhere to an agreed contract of job seeking activity.

My take on it is they attempt to scare people more than anything else, create confusion and hope most are ignorant of the rules.

If they change an appointment from a regular slot and you fail to understand and don't turn up, this does not equate to a refusal to work. It's simply a mistake and should definitely be put into context as to whether the jobseeker has been attending job interviews, applying and being active.

In fact, yesterday I offered to paint a huge sports stadium at minimum rate since the building is in a state.

We can go around in circles of course but we'll now have to see what unfolds next.

 

Fairness demands that the tests of whether you are actively seeking work are objective.

 

In order to avoid arbitrary decisions, there must be absolutely clear measures as to what constitutes actively seeking work, and being available for work.

 

One measure of being available for work is whether you turn up for an appointment. If you don't turn up to an appointment, it creates an assumption that you are not there because you are doing something else, and that you are consequently NOT available for work.

[Higgs]

I think we're into mountain and molehill territory now. TBH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think this current Government is engaging in a game of bluff. Fact is the Government has signed up to a document that guarantees a very basic set of fundamental rights to all E.U. citizens. Some people on the forum may not like that fact but the fact remains we do now have a very basic constitution.

There have to be rules otherwise we descend into anarchy. Such as working rights and a minimum wage - the minimum wage was opposed by the Tories anway since they seek a cheap pool of labour. It also suits the Tories to create fear in the workplace so people will accept anything so as to avoid being kicked around by the system..

The real facts are: Anyone who finds his or herself out of work but agrees to seek work is allowed a very basic amount of money as a form of social protection from extreme poverty. To be disqualified from that right requires actual refusal to work. However, the job centre has to provide good evidence this is the fact. This may be, for example, someone who gives up paid employment, "refuses" to attend a job interview or clearly doesn't adhere to an agreed contract of job seeking activity.

My take on it is they attempt to scare people more than anything else, create confusion and hope most are ignorant of the rules.

If they change an appointment from a regular slot and you fail to understand and don't turn up, this does not equate to a refusal to work. It's simply a mistake and should definitely be put into context as to whether the jobseeker has been attending job interviews, applying and being active.

In fact, yesterday I offered to paint a huge sports stadium at minimum rate since the building is in a state.

We can go around in circles of course but we'll now have to see what unfolds next.

[Smelly]

# So, why was my claim terminated in legal terms? #

 

Was it terminated or were you sanctioned for a fixed period? They are two separate issues.

 

In legal terms; there are deeming provisions to treat you as satisfying the labour market conditions as well there there are provisions for treating you as not doing.

 

You are deemed not to satisfy those conditions if you don't show up for an interview... There are practical reasons, after all you might have found a job and just thought not to tell them as happens an awful lot, or you might be a waster who thinks the world owes them a living as also happens an awful lot'; the former is clearly not the case!

 

Either merits cessation of a claim unless good cause is established for failure to attend. You have not established good cause in the eyes of the person who adjudicated it; in my mind a second "oh no I forgot" merits sanction...

 

That's the nice answer, the nasty one challenges the temerity of standing next to the likes of those who have gambled life and liberty in support of a just cause when one has admitted they're likely to have screwed up. Speaking as someone who has been incarcerated for crimes of conscience; yet would never dream of claiming to fill such shoes as those who have gone before I am struggling not to break the forum's guidelines in speaking my mind.

[Tuscan]

Was it terminated or were you sanctioned for a fixed period? They are two separate issues.

 

In legal terms; there are deeming provisions to treat you as satisfying the labour market conditions as well there there are provisions for treating you as not doing.

 

You are deemed not to satisfy those conditions if you don't show up for an interview... There are practical reasons, after all you might have found a job and just thought not to tell them as happens an awful lot, or you might be a waster who thinks the world owes them a living as also happens an awful lot'; the former is clearly not the case!

 

Either merits cessation of a claim unless good cause is established for failure to attend. You have not established good cause in the eyes of the person who adjudicated it; in my mind a second "oh no I forgot" merits sanction...

 

That's the nice answer, the nasty one challenges the temerity of standing next to the likes of those who have gambled life and liberty in support of a just cause when one has admitted they're likely to have screwed up. Speaking as someone who has been incarcerated for crimes of conscience; yet would never dream of claiming to fill such shoes as those who have gone before I am struggling not to break the forum's guidelines in speaking my mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Agreed, You are so right

 

.Work plan.

 

1. Remove large chip from shoulder

2. Do some serious sole searching about how to engage with recruitment agencies and employment service on a daily basis.,

3. Make it clear to all that you are looking not waitng for things to happen

3. Extract digit

4. Go for it , it's tough out here but persistence will be rewarded.

5 do none of the above and continue pontificating

[micky44]

not once did i or any one else mention hitler or the nazis, except of course the previous poster) your to blame for godwinism, if only to prove a point.

 

You wouldn't have got away with saying that in Nazi Germany.

[Smelly]

Is it just me, or has Carl's post vanished?

[Grace and Favour]

Is it just me, or has Carl's post vanished?

 

Oops!

 

 

You'll be relieved to learn that you've not imagined it

[carlt]

Is it just me, or has Carl's post vanished?

 

BANG! and the dirt is gone!...

 

or should it be...

Edited June 1, 2012 by carlt

[Smelly]

Have you lifted the first one from the wrong website Carl?

[carlt]

Have you lifted the first one from the wrong website Carl?

Randomly picked from Google Images but considering the erased post was about WW2 and Godwin's, a wargaming blog is not entirely inappropriate (or have I not looked deeply enough?).

[Smelly]

Randomly picked from Google Images but considering the erased post was about WW2 and Godwin's, a wargaming blog is not entirely inappropriate (or have I not looked deeply enough?).

 

That edit probably represents a cunning stunt!

[luctor et emergo]

tonight, I can not be bothered. Which is a pity, because this is a subject close to my heart.. but somehow, it doesn't seemworthwhile..

[Guest]

I can't believe that the "Godwin Law" bullshit has survived this far.

[carlt]

Ali was a great man. I don't think you understand what Ali was fighting against and the courage it took...

Snipped the ridiculous.

 

You obviously pick and choose the bits you want to read.

 

I didn't criticise Ali. I criticised you comparing him protesting and taking the consequences to you failing to fulfil your obligations then whining when you get your wrist slapped.

 

If you see your failure to attend an interview as a protest, rather than just being an airhead then accept the consequences like a man and stop whingeing about it.

 

We all have our problems and we find ways of adapting or using them to our advantage.

 

There are enough memory aids out there not to have to miss appointments. For a start whenever I turn my computer on it tells me what I have to do, in the day ahead, before I log on here to have a moan.

 

Don't compare yourself to a man who still maintains a busy itinerary, despite having a debilitating brain disease because to do so just proves that it is you who doesn't understand the significance of his issues compared to the triviality of yours.

Edited June 2, 2012 by carlt