Refusing a Job - New Rules

[Suppin]

I was told today at the job centre that the rules have changed. It is no longer a valid reason to not apply for a job because the travel costs exceed the wage. Apparently this means that if I see a minimum wage job that's an hour a day in the morning in London, which costs me £45 a day to travel to, I have to apply for it even though the travel cost is almost £40 higher a day.

 

My question is, if I apply for a job where the travel costs exceed the wage and I was offered it, would I then be able to turn the job down without being sanctioned?

[dyfed]

They may sanction you but you could win your appeal. Seems dwp throw sanctions about like it was confetti.

Its un resonable for you to take a job and the travel exceed the wage. I bet mps would soon be crying if they lost travel expenses.

[impecunious]

Off with their heads!!!! Just ask them to do a "better off" calculation ..... they can't possibly expect you to spend more in travel expenses than you'd receive in wages! Besides, I was told that I would be expected to look for work within a 90 minute commute from home (on public transport). So, say you take a bus, with several changes, you really wouldn't be expected to travel very far -- 5-6 miles if truth be known. (Including walk from home to bus stop plus journey, plus changes and waiting time etc.)

 

Just make sure that you aren't offered any jobs where the travel costs exceed the wages you're offered!! I'm sure that wouldn't be too difficult.

 

Impecunious!

[Nystagmite]

So, if you take a job and the travel costs are more or equal to your wage, how and what do you live on?

[antone]

Wait, what? If a job is not 16 hours per week, you can't be sanctioned for declining to apply for it. Or has this changed?

[flumps1976]

Antone that hasn't changed YET, but it may change with the introduction of Universal Credit, I'm not on the advisory team so can't say I've heard anything about travel costs no longer being a reason for turning down a job offer, but I suspect it's to do with the change of travel time being increased to 90 from day 1 of the claim.

[Suppin]

So, if you take a job and the travel costs are more or equal to your wage, how and what do you live on?

You live on the streets near your new job until you get fired for constantly coming to work unwashed and in tattered clothes. Then you get a lengthy sanction for being fired for said reason.

 

Antone that hasn't changed YET, but it may change with the introduction of Universal Credit, I'm not on the advisory team so can't say I've heard anything about travel costs no longer being a reason for turning down a job offer, but I suspect it's to do with the change of travel time being increased to 90 from day 1 of the claim.

So the staff were lying me when they told me that I had to apply for jobs like this? I was told that the reason I have to apply for jobs where the pay doesn't meet the travel costs is because I've been signing on for over a year. I record my visits to the job centre for my own protection, so I have an audio file of two members of staff telling me to do this.

[flumps1976]

I posted to say that I don't work on the advisory team so I honestly don't know sorry.

When you have been signing for more than 12 months and are referred to the work progran you are expected to apply for all vacancies that ou are qualified and capable of doing regardless of if it's a job you want to do or not.

Sometimes when things change the advisory team are informed in their weekly meetings and the rest of the office are informed later. So it could be true or it might not be and also if it's the work program that told you that then they are nothing to do with the advisory team abd could have been told that by their management.

[poppy12345]

If they want to be so pathetic, could you do the same & just apply for jobs you know you will never get eg doctor. It makes about as much sense as what they are saying.

[dyfed]

I just cant get my head around the thought of dwp mandating anyone to take employment where travel would exceed the wage.

Do they expect you to move closer to your place of employment? I know many people move to their job.

[dyfed]

If they want to be so pathetic, could you do the same & just apply for jobs you know you will never get eg doctor. It makes about as much sense as what they are saying.

 

Yes many people do a mixture of jobs they would like and fill the rest of the work diary with jobs their not qualified for lol

[dyfed]

Just reading through the Unemployment Movement forum and came across a thread "Changes at the Job Centre?" where RealName is taliking about his recent visit to his Job Centre.

He was told that tavel expenses exceeding the wage is not a valid reason to apply for the job and most disturbingly he was told that if he was not prepared to go homeless to find work he obviously not doing enough to look for work and didnt want a job.

 

http://unemploymentmovement.com/forum/unemployment-and-job-centre-plus/5356-changes-at-the-job-centre?limitstart=0

 

Oh my God!

This cant be happening.

So the next thing on the governments dwp agenda is you will be sanctioned if your not homeless and applying for every job that you cant afford to get to.

 

By the way if I was homeless could I still claim JSA?

[RealName]

So the next thing on the governments dwp agenda is you will be sanctioned if your not homeless and applying for every job that you cant afford to get to.

Fortunately if a job is further than 90 minutes we still don't have to apply for them. For now at least. It seems backwards logic to me. I'd rather spend three hours travelling to a job I'd make money from than travel to a job where I'd either have to pay to work or sleep on the streets nearby.

 

By the way if I was homeless could I still claim JSA?

I'm not sure. You need an address to claim benefits, so I would guess not. I could be wrong though.

[antone]

I'm not sure. You need an address to claim benefits, so I would guess not. I could be wrong though.

 

Yes, you can claim if you're homeless. You do need an address for correspondence, but it can be that of a friend or, as a last resort, a local Jobcentre.

[Old Cogger]

Been there back in late 1980s & early 1990s, managed to get a job = 100 miles round trip, which took out £40.00 a week in petrol, then £55 per week rent, left me £18.00 a week for food light etc after Tax/Insurance, no help given then, also reminds me of the Merchant Nay = 3 offers reuse the 1st 2nd 3rd you were out I was informed, if you did not like the 3rd no going back to the 2nd or 1st it seems, then out of work and await 13 weeks for doe money.

[dyfed]

Yes, you can claim if you're homeless. You do need an address for correspondence, but it can be that of a friend or, as a last resort, a local Jobcentre.

 

 

Thanks.

 

I wasnt sure if it had changed. I used to know a guy who was homeless and used our local Mind drop in centre.

[RealName]

I finally have the answer. Yes, you can still turn down a job if it would cost you more to travel to than it pays.

 

When signing on today I asked if I still had to apply for jobs where it would cost me more to travel to than the job pays. I was told 'It wouldn't be beneficial for you to have the job, so you wouldn't have to accept it.'. She was sketchy on the details about having to apply for jobs like this though. I pointed out that making jobseekers apply for jobs like this was only frustrating employers by wasting their time, but she still continued to be evasive about actually applying for the jobs, only telling me that I wouldn't have to accept a job if it wasn't beneficial. At least if it comes to it and not only does one of these employers actually offer me the job, but JCP find out I turned it down, I'll have a recording of an advisor telling me I could reject the job, as well as sufficient proof that I would be losing money by taking it. So really the system works much like the old one. We can still reject a job if we would be worse off with it. The only difference is that travel costs exceeding the wage is no longer a valid reason for not applying for a job.

[dyfed]

Hmmmm seems like a post code lottery on this.

Some have said they have to apply for these jobs because working benefits would mean you would be better off working.

Others have said, like you, that if travel exceeds the wage then you need not apply.

Its even the case that some employers wont take you on if you live to far away.

 

This is just typical of this government and dwp.

[Mr.P]

A while back, one of the JCP+ "advisers" told that if she said I had to apply for a part time job 30 miles away flipping burgers, then that is what I had to do... This is despite a minor problem regarding the lack of public transport to the area in question, and a trivial issue that I can not work with food for health reasons (something that was clearly stated on my JSag). That working with beef/horse/pig products conflicted with possible religious and moral believes was a point totally wasted on her. Under the current regime, I dare say I would have had a sanction for blowing a raspberry at the suggestion.

[Nystagmite]

Its even the case that some employers wont take you on if you live to far away.

 

This happened to me. I was refused a job because I lived too far away.