Unemployment down, inflation down..

[WeX]

The government has introduced sanctions to unemployment benefits.

 

If anyone fails to meet very exacting criteria for claiming benefits, they can be sanctioned, in other words, have their benefits stopped for any length of time the job centre decide on (there may well be an official tarrif that jobcentres have to adhere to but I'm not sure.)

 

first page ....

 

When you are in receipt of JSA, sanctions are as follows:

 

13 weeks exclusion for “first failure,”

26 weeks for a “second failure,”

156 weeks for a third and any subsequence failures with a 52 week period.

 

If people are sanctioned they are not in receipt of these benefits and so are not being paid by the tax payer. It does seem like a twist of words, but I get the point.

 

According to this press release, 580,000 people were sanctioned under the new system for a 1 year period between October 2012 and Nov 2013, all for the following reasons:

 

• failed to do enough to find work.
  
• turning down jobs offers.
  
• not turned up to appointments.

[Supertramp]

The government has introduced sanctions to unemployment benefits.

 

If anyone fails to meet very exacting criteria for claiming benefits, they can be sanctioned, in other words, have their benefits stopped for any length of time the job centre decide on (there may well be an official tarrif that jobcentres have to adhere to but I'm not sure.)

 

The problems lie in what the jobcentre decides is an infringement of 'the rules.'

 

The internet is awash with tales of benefits being stopped for the most trivial of reasons; eg being minutes late to sign on, even with a perfectly valid reason, or not having applied for enough jobs, the number of which seems to be at the total discretion of the jobcentre person and often ridiculous, or the jobseeker not having the paperwork to prove it, in fact causing any sort of minor discrepancy that the jobcentre deems a problem. Any objection will only result in further sanctions.

 

So numerous and so petty are some of the reasons for stopping benefits that some people suspect the jobcentres have covert targets that they have to meet in order to reduce the number of people claiming benefits, thus allowing the government to make grandiose claims about unemployment falling.

 

People on sanctions, which can last as long as six months, are left high and dry with nothing to live on. They have to beg for food at places like foodbanks.

 

As you say, it sounds reasonable, but like many things with this government, the way it's being put into practice isn't. There are a number of threads on here about it, so judge for yourself.

 

Sanctions have been around long before this government.

 

People on sanctions are not left high and dry, they get hardship payments, the difference is that when you do get an income you have to pay back hardship payments.

[Obelix]

This is a view from over 6000 miles away,

 

The UK recovery is seen as nothing short of miraculous. Here in the US things are slowly improving but we have huge advantages of natural resources, virtually free energy due to fracking etc.

 

To see the old country really leaving the European countries behind and turning the corner so quickly is an absolute delight.

 

If you've got any links to this sort of thing it would be interesting to read on what the view is from outside.

[WeX]

The government has introduced sanctions to unemployment benefits.

 

If anyone fails to meet very exacting criteria for claiming benefits, they can be sanctioned, in other words, have their benefits stopped for any length of time the job centre decide on (there may well be an official tarrif that jobcentres have to adhere to but I'm not sure.)

 

The problems lie in what the jobcentre decides is an infringement of 'the rules.'

 

The internet is awash with tales of benefits being stopped for the most trivial of reasons; eg being minutes late to sign on, even with a perfectly valid reason, or not having applied for enough jobs, the number of which seems to be at the total discretion of the jobcentre person and often ridiculous, or the jobseeker not having the paperwork to prove it, in fact causing any sort of minor discrepancy that the jobcentre deems a problem. Any objection will only result in further sanctions.

 

So numerous and so petty are some of the reasons for stopping benefits that some people suspect the jobcentres have covert targets that they have to meet in order to reduce the number of people claiming benefits, thus allowing the government to make grandiose claims about unemployment falling.

 

People on sanctions, which can last as long as six months, are left high and dry with nothing to live on. They have to beg for food at places like foodbanks.

 

As you say, it sounds reasonable, but like many things with this government, the way it's being put into practice isn't. There are a number of threads on here about it, so judge for yourself.

 

I was signing on for a couple of years once and never once had any issues. I followed the rules and I got the limited support they offered me.

 

I saw many people getting aggressive and mouthy when they turned up late or hadn't applied for enough jobs etc. I have to tell you, they were all the same. Scruffy, tattoo laden types who thought the system was doing them a favour, not the other way round.

 

These examples you quote, but do not reference, in many cases are refuted as they only give part of the story. The people losing their benefits are never going to say it was their fault, especially the types of people who are the ones being penalised.

 

Lastly there is something called Hardship payments that are there to help people under sanctions who have financial difficulty. No one needs to go hungry, that is a fallacy and an argument that does not stand up to scrutiny I'm afraid.

 

There are always those who fall through the cracks. Its unfortunate but it happens. Just because someone has a bad experience in one ward in one hospital in the NHS does not mean the entire NHS needs reform or is the same. The same goes for those claiming JSA. Those who are genuine cases of mistakes made are helped and are not abandoned.

[Anna B]

Sanctions have been around long before this government.

 

People on sanctions are not left high and dry, they get hardship payments, the difference is that when you do get an income you have to pay back hardship payments.

 

As I said, sanctions for failure to follow procedures are not the problem, it's how rigorously and unfairly the sanctions are being applied. As for hardship payments, if they are available, how long does it take for them to come through? Same with appeals, there are so many the waiting list is now over 18 months.

[WeX]

As I said, sanctions for failure to follow procedures are not the problem, it's how rigorously and unfairly the sanctions are being applied. As for hardship payments, if they are available, how long does it take for them to come through? Same with appeals, there are so many the waiting list is now over 18 months.

 

Examples, you are making claims without any back up.

 

You may be correct but unless you can back up your claims, people will not take you on face value.

[Supertramp]

As I said, sanctions for failure to follow procedures are not the problem, it's how rigorously and unfairly the sanctions are being applied. As for hardship payments, if they are available, how long does it take for them to come through? Same with appeals, there are so many the waiting list is now over 18 months.

 

Same day processing for hardship payments. How do you know they are being unfairly applied, of course anyone who is sanctioned is going to say they are unfair?

[Dromedary]

The issue is people are not using the full facts.

 

When you are in receipt of JSA, sanctions are as follows:

 

13 weeks exclusion for “first failure,”

26 weeks for a “second failure,”

156 weeks for a third and any subsequence failures with a 52 week period.

 

If people are sanctioned they are not in receipt of these benefits and so are not being paid by the tax payer. It does seem like a twist of words, but I get the point.

 

According to this press release, 580,000 people were sanctioned under the new system for a 1 year period between October 2012 and Nov 2013, all for the following reasons:

 

• failed to do enough to find work.
  
• turning down jobs offers.
  
• not turned up to appointments.
  

 

 

That's slightly wrong. There was 580,000 sanctions carried out which is not the same as saying 5800,000 people were sanctioned for a 1 year period. Some will have been repeat offenders and will have previously been sanctioned under the sanction list you have quoted.

 

As for hardship payments they will normally apply only to what is classed as vulnerable groups (not supplying a list as its fairly long) if you can give supporting evidence to show hardship may affect you. There is a normal waiting time of around 2 weeks but if you are classed a vulnerable it can be as little as 4 days but not an immediate payout. Not an easy thing to claim if you are not in a vulnerable group.

[Bob England]

Guys you know, some French philosopher said "The poor are always with us". I love the UK, I love Sheffield, but from the tone of some of the posts, all of which I am sure are kindly meant, you are trying to help people who really need to be helping themselves.

 

If they were to move over to this part of the US they would be in serious trouble, welfare is minimal, the culture can be unforgiving.

 

Welfare is all well and good, for a short term fix, but they need to get jobs. If that means flipping burgers so be it.

 

From what I read there are a million Polish people with jobs in the UK what the hell is wrong with the locals?

[Mecky]

The economy picks up, wages are lowered to control inflation, race to the bottom