dwp forcing me into a job

[wishface]

Many years ago when I worked in a local jobcentre I remember a gentleman who came in every fortnight to sign on. His jobseekers agreeement (or equivalent) stated that he wanted to work as a writer or poet. From the longer term staff there I found out that he'd been signing onto unemployment benefit for more than 10 years with that job aim. He never considered any other type of employment during the whole time I worked there and AFAIK had not had any employment at all for many years.

 

Because of people like him the government brings in rules stating that people have to accept work outside their normal fields or wage after 6 months. This does not seem unreasonable... until you are the one in that situation. Now clearly the above example is extreme, but even recently I've had people turn down jobs I have found in jobsearches because the wage is too low, and the wage has been far more than twice my current salary.

 

So after being damned for allowing such people to live off the state without taking reasonable steps to find some form of work the government is then damned for trying to force people into work. Everyone has reasons for wanting to restrict their jobsearch, and until you've been in that situation its difficult to imagine that those reasons may be quite valid. If they did not have sanctions what would they say to those people who turn down good offers of employment - "take the job or I'll shake my finger at you next week" perhaps?

 

I'd quite like to work as a writer or in a museum, that would be meaningful to me. There's what I'd like to do, and what I have to do to earn a living. I don't particularly like my job or find it dreadfully rewarding but I took it because any job for £250 a week is better than £60 a week.

 

So I have no major problems with people being "forced" into work.

 

 

 

The DWP will advertise just about anything that isn't illegal or discriminatory. I therefore don't see your point on it not being "bothered" to advertise meaningful work (whatever that means since its subjective) since there's generally quite a variety on there.

Because in my experience the JC treat people like dirt, make no effort to offer help of any kind, farm people off to these awful providers (like a4e) and don't canvas for or look for work on the 'customers' behalf (as the cusomter himself has to). They are petty dictators and bureacrats and half the reason for my current stress and anxiety is having to deal with them, and I dread having to do so again if i stop receiving ESA.

[privatehudson]

Because in my experience the JC treat people like dirt, make no effort to offer help of any kind, farm people off to these awful providers (like a4e) and don't canvas for or look for work on the 'customers' behalf (as the cusomter himself has to). They are petty dictators and bureacrats and half the reason for my current stress and anxiety is having to deal with them, and I dread having to do so again if i stop receiving ESA.

 

My experience is pretty much the opposite, I have my current job because someone took the time to send me the details in the post and advised me of what to expect of the application process. I got my earlier job through the help of government schemes that allowed me to go through training and then got me a voluntary position with the charity that lead to paid work.

 

However how does this relate to to the point I assume this was in response to - whether the jobcentre can be "bothered" to advertise "meaningful" vacancies? We can all have a rant about a company or organisation but how does it add any value to the topic?

[RaeUK]

Got to admit that I find my local JC staff and my Pathways Advisor helpfull in the extreme. Maybe I'm just lucky...

[wishface]

Got to admit that I find my local JC staff and my Pathways Advisor helpfull in the extreme. Maybe I'm just lucky...

Well that's good. Obviously!

 

But my experience is my experience. I can't pretend otherwise. I remember once having the manager rather vocally criticise me for apparenlty not making enough effort to look for work. She had been called over by the adviser on an unrelated matter (they mucked me about gettting funding for a passport so i coudl have ID and let me down with that as well). She decided that, becuase a) there were jobs on the system and b) I was signing on, that I was not making enough effort. She proceeded to say that, if I could be bothered that she could provide me with labouring work without a CSCS card (she didn't offer me any, or have any just shouted at me).

[wishface]

My experience is pretty much the opposite, I have my current job because someone took the time to send me the details in the post and advised me of what to expect of the application process. I got my earlier job through the help of government schemes that allowed me to go through training and then got me a voluntary position with the charity that lead to paid work.

 

However how does this relate to to the point I assume this was in response to - whether the jobcentre can be "bothered" to advertise "meaningful" vacancies? We can all have a rant about a company or organisation but how does it add any value to the topic?

I believe the jobcentre should help finding work for claimants. Not just sit back and advertise whatever comes through their doors. You'd think and organisation like that would have influence within all spheres of employment and could help. Instead they just funnel all claimants through the same few jobs and wonder why people remain out of work. It's a very stupid system that instead should focus on the individual and their needs/wants in terms of employment, not let them waste away in pointless work for next to nothing, or give money to privateers like Emma Harrison.

[bigsteve0000]

Because in my experience the JC treat people like dirt, make no effort to offer help of any kind, farm people off to these awful providers (like a4e) and don't canvas for or look for work on the 'customers' behalf (as the cusomter himself has to). They are petty dictators and bureacrats and half the reason for my current stress and anxiety is having to deal with them, and I dread having to do so again if i stop receiving ESA.

 

 

most of the job centre staff I've seen have been ok. theirs been the odd pratt who looked down their nose at me but most have been ok. I think It depends on how you treat them and what efforts you make to find work. If they pull a job up on the computer and I say no its usually for a reason, I tell them that reason and its usually a good one eg: lack of qualifications, relevant licence or certificates or health probs. If you take the pee they dont like it. ive told them no on money ground for a few jobs mainly because their min wage and to far away. or the other side of the humber bridge. told them once you take travel/bridge costs in to account your getting less than on the dole. they never push it. if ive no good reason for turning it down I apply for it I've only had 1 interview out of one of these applications and I messed that up by discussing my health issus.

[antone]

 

The DWP will advertise just about anything that isn't illegal or discriminatory. I therefore don't see your point on it not being "bothered" to advertise meaningful work (whatever that means since its subjective) since there's generally quite a variety on there.

 

To add to what you say here, it's worth noting that the Jobcentre doesn't go around trawling for vacancies and advertising them on Jobseeker Direct against the will of the employers. It does attempt to encourage employers to use the service where possible, but it can't force them.

[RaeUK]

Well that's good. Obviously!

 

Glad you had a smile hunni.

 

I do read the posts on here [yours included] where people have had such a terrible experience with the JCP / DWP staff. I'm glad that in 18 months of applying for ESA I've never had that type of experience. [touch wood, fingers crossed etc!].

At times I feel almost embarrassed posting what almost amounts to 'I Love JCP' [ - visions of hordes of disenfranchised job seekers descending on my home with tar and feathers...! - ] it's just to add a little balance into what is an ever increasingly unbalanced system.

 

Best wishes

Rae

[privatehudson]

I believe the jobcentre should help finding work for claimants. Not just sit back and advertise whatever comes through their doors.

 

By advertising vacancies they are helping find work for claimants since it provides another central point for employers to use for free. If the jobs seem similar or poorly paid then that's sadly a reflection of the country as a whole. The Job centre cannot create the jobs or make employers use the service after all.

 

As for the personalised service notion, that would work really well... if staff numbers were increased sufficiently. Good luck with that idea whilst the coalition are busy slashing budgets across the board.

[antone]

I believe the jobcentre should help finding work for claimants. Not just sit back and advertise whatever comes through their doors. You'd think and organisation like that would have influence within all spheres of employment and could help. Instead they just funnel all claimants through the same few jobs and wonder why people remain out of work. It's a very stupid system that instead should focus on the individual and their needs/wants in terms of employment, not let them waste away in pointless work for next to nothing, or give money to privateers like Emma Harrison.

 

I'm not sure that I disagree with you on any matter of principle here: I would love to see a JCP that has the resources to conduct jobsearches in all fields on behalf of all its customers. But it doesn't have these resources, and let's see how anyone would get on, in today's political climate, arguing that we need to find money to pay more civil servants.

 

In the end, the Jobcentre provides an imperfect service, making the basic assumption that it is the responsibility of the jobseeker to look for work. It does this because it simply doesn't have the resources to analyse the preferred career paths of 2.5 million people and look for appropriate jobs for each and every one of them.

 

Taxpayers, many of whom are in jobs they don't particularly want to be doing, or which aren't particularly well-suited to their skills and talents, or which pay less than they would like, are actually funding this system. The Jobcentre has a duty to protect them as well as to pay benefits to the unemployed. And it's not immediately obvious to me, from a moral/ethical point of view, that those taxpayers should be forced to remain in the jobs they don't like in order to ensure that unemployed people don't have to take jobs they don't like.

 

Funnily enough, I do sort of agree with you about a "Citizens' Wage", especially given the money that could be saved in administering several different benefits, each with its own complex and arcane rules. But that's a matter you would need to take to Parliament. Getting upset with JCP staff on 15 grand a year won't help make this change.

[bigsteve0000]

in the end it all comes down to people. The JC/DWP staff are people and the unemployed are people (just) and with people every where these groups consist of all sorts The good, the bad and the ugly (and god knows theirs some ugly ones) but if your lucky youll get the good ones, if your unlucky youll get the ugly ones and if your really unlucky youll get the bad ones. unfortunately thats life youve got to do your best with what your given if you get depressed or strest you end up in the sh#t, so keep your head on straight and remeber this is a game youve gotta win.

 

Ive had the odd bad one and found that if you show interest in everyting and pretend their doing some good their egos will love to see you every fortnight. ask about training, especially expensive training cos they wont give you it if its expensive. get jobs of the job point that you might like but dont have the qualifications for and ask if they can set you up on any goverment scheams that will get you qualified. I can garantee they wont have any scheams but you will have earned brownie points because your seen to be trying and they will love you for it. it makes life a lot easier for you and in my case my personal adviser bent a few rule and told a few lies to get me on a refresher course that I didnt qualifie for because I had the wrong post code. God (or in this cas JC) helps thoughs who help them selves.

 

And remember DONT LET THE BUG##RS GET YA DOWN

Edited July 18, 2010 by bigsteve0000

[wishface]

By advertising vacancies they are helping find work for claimants since it provides another central point for employers to use for free. If the jobs seem similar or poorly paid then that's sadly a reflection of the country as a whole. The Job centre cannot create the jobs or make employers use the service after all.

 

As for the personalised service notion, that would work really well... if staff numbers were increased sufficiently. Good luck with that idea whilst the coalition are busy slashing budgets across the board.

Indeed. But it's sad they can farm out claimants like cattle for the welfare providers such as I have mentioned (the real benefit spongers) and yet that money can't be used more productively to directly help people.

 

Unemployment is a gravy train and as such it's big business. Whatever people might feel about 'scroungers' this will never change, certainly not under this fake government we now have that no one actually elected in.

 

Of course this assumes you believe the nonsense about a deficit.

[antone]

Indeed. But it's sad they can farm out claimants like cattle for the welfare providers such as I have mentioned (the real benefit spongers) and yet that money can't be used more productively to directly help people.

 

Unemployment is a gravy train and as such it's big business. Whatever people might feel about 'scroungers' this will never change, certainly not under this fake government we now have that no one actually elected in.

 

Of course this assumes you believe the nonsense about a deficit.

 

Again, I don't disagree with you, really. I don't like the "Providers", and I did deal with them as a very recent JCP employee. And please note I did not, at any point in this discussion, refer to "scroungers". I guess there may be a few scroungers here and there - any system large enough to allow for that possibility is bound to have a handful - but they are not the main issue here.

 

I suppose I was addressing two main points: what should government pay for; and what should one do when faced with poorly paid government staff who can't change the system any more than you can suddenly decide to become a millionaire.

 

In both cases the answer is the same: it's a question for the politicians and, as such, for the people. I can see great value in a "Citizens' Wage" or, failing that, a JCP service that does a lot more to help people into the kind of work they are best suited to doing. I'd vote for it.

 

But such a system does not currently exist - the responsibility to find work falls primarily on the individual. I don't disagree with that. If government money is to be spent on this, I do agree that it should be spent effectively, and I further agree that this is not currently the case. But still, you and I have a personal responsibility to support ourselves. Support from taxpayer-funded services would be welcome, but I'm not sure we have the right to demand that such services meet our personal criteria for perfection.

[Guest jsa12]

the job centre live in their own word,expanding job search is one thing having the experience is something else,often they dont have a suitable vacancies on the system and it makes life simpler for them to send people for anything.however slight the chance of success.the problem it wastes time and precious money when on benefits'.

 

tips are

 

always apply for vacancies submitted for at the job centre and keep proof such as recorded delivery.i have happen to me a company told the dwp i had not applied and i received a letter of refusal from the same company.

 

always appeal against any sanction.

 

its absolute folly to expect someone to live on a wage that they cannot live on any shortfalls in council tax and you will run into substantial problems' and excessive traveling expenses are another to watch out for,they will often try and forward people for vacancies that they cannot get too,the rules say one hour traveling time from your door not an hour's walk when you get off the bus the other end.

 

If you have your money stopped you might be legible for hardship rate (about 40% of regular dole). If you aren't legible you starve. It's that simple, and that cruel.

 

they can reduce it as you say,but they cannot stop it. the only time that can happen if you have savings,i agree with what you are saying and its all very true it is very unfair often unlawful the treatment.

Edited July 19, 2010 by jsa12
update

[wishface]

 

they can reduce it as you say,but they cannot stop it. the only time that can happen if you have savings,i agree with what you are saying and its all very true it is very unfair often unlawful the treatment.

Unfortunately they can stop it. Hardship rate, which must be applied for, is not guaranteed. There is no guaranteed minimum for people, however small, who suffer the wrath of this heavily punitive system.

[Rachie1973]

Hi, What happens then to the people who have had a reasonable job and are paying a mortgage, they lose their job and the DWP pay the mortgage interest and JSA.

If they are then forced into a minimum wage job then the mortgage interest stops getting paid and the person would lose their house.

That cannot be fair, if a person is renting they would get help.

People with mortgages are at a disadvantage already because they have more insurances to pay from their pitiful benefits.

People cannot be prepared for this kind of thing. Most peoples wages dont make it possible to save for a rainy day.

 

 

Its sad but it happens.

 

My hubby and I lost our business, therefore our income. We got low paying jobs but nowhere near enough to cover our mortgage.

 

We were evicted, Hubby, myself and my 4 kids went into a B & B, my husbands son went to live with his mother.

 

2 months later we got a rental and housng benefit.

 

We're financially better off than we have been in years, but god knows how many years we lost in stress.

 

You just have to deal with it

[Rachie1973]

Maybe its just me, but I don't see the issue.

 

Any job that I can do is better than not working at all for me. My minimum wage is topped up with housing benefit and tax credits.

 

I do feel that if we are able to work, and a job is available then yes, we should take it.

 

Theres nothing to stop us looking for something more appropriate to our desires whilst we work.

[wishface]

Except some people just don't have the time and energy after a long day in a job they hate to pursue other work.

[Rachie1973]

Except some people just don't have the time and energy after a long day in a job they hate to pursue other work.

 

 

Sorry but what a cop out. Of course genuine depression needs to be dealt with in an appropriate manner, but 'I'm too tired' is not a reason.

 

If you have the energy to turn on your PC you can look and apply online for jobs. If you want something enough you have to go after it.

[Guest jsa12]

Unfortunately they can stop it. Hardship rate, which must be applied for, is not guaranteed. There is no guaranteed minimum for people, however small, who suffer the wrath of this heavily punitive system.

 

i was informed by the cab that they could not do that and leave people completely without money,there are crisis loans however this has to be paid back at a later date.

[wishface]

i was informed by the cab that they could not do that and leave people completely without money,there are crisis loans however this has to be paid back at a later date.

Crisis Loans won't be paid if you don't get benefit. Such a loan is only paid up to your next due benefit payment date - ie they give you the absolute minimum (and you have to travel to the JC to pick it up), and only if you have absolutely nothing. They don't give money to people as a substitute for benefit.

 

Now maybe the system has changed, but there is no guarantee for hardship payments and the JC can leave people without money. for instance if i fail my medical i get nothing. I have to claim JSA. Also if you are living in the family home you get no hardship payment at all - it is expected that the people you live with will support you (whether they actually can is another matter).

[ErikaPNP]

Crisis loans can be paid when a person is not receiving benefit, but they are not paid when there is a sanction in place, as it defeats the purpose of the sanction.

 

However there is no absolute right to a crisis loan nor to hardship payments - both are discretionary, but have specific guidelines for consideration.

 

The CAB are incorrect in that the DWP cannot leave a person without any means. If this were the case, very few people would do anything that is a condition of receiving their benefit as they would be guaranteed another way of receiving money.

[Guest jsa12]

they can stop money if you have savings or other means of support,however those without savings are entitled to hardship provision.

 

problems can arise when separate conditions apply such as on new deal,however hardship payments' (reduced jobseekers) again no one can be left without nothing i have never known this to happen.

 

as mentioned always appeal against any sanction,this is an absolute must whatever the reason.

[ErikaPNP]

Although savings and other means are considered when looking at a hardship claim, not having means does not automatically entitle a person to hardship. There are far many other matters that require consideration.

 

Chapter 35 - Hardship

[bigsteve0000]

they can stop money if you have savings or other means of support,however those without savings are entitled to hardship provision.

 

problems can arise when separate conditions apply such as on new deal,however hardship payments' (reduced jobseekers) again no one can be left without nothing i have never known this to happen.

 

as mentioned always appeal against any sanction,this is an absolute must whatever the reason.

 

 

 

I suggest you read this thread and see just what they can leave you without

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/benefits-tax-credits-minimum/263195-benefits-stopped-because-i.html