Benefit sanctions evidence

[Cyclone]

Funny how most of those advisers worked for companies which subsequently bought huge amounts of Royal Mail stock. No conflict of interest there at all.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Only if they break the rules which they agreed to. Should there be no punishment if they break the rules?

They don't enter that contract with equal power though, on being given the choice between nil income and state benefits - but let's not get into unequal contracts.

 

Still, my point stands. We don't punish criminals in the means of taking food out of their belly, but we find that a suitable punishment for the unemployed. Murders still get to eat, and someone who failed to attend the Jobcentre has to go begging for his dinner. It's a disgrace.

 

We're in a culture where being unemployed is such a social stigma that it allows this to happen. The rules should be set up in such a way that isn't punitive, but supports people to find work. What impression do you think a man would make at an interview when he can't afford his bus fare, or even a breakfast to eat before his interview? It's fruitless.

[Anna B]

Good points.

 

And the social stigma isn't an accident. It's been deliberately encouraged by our miserable politicians to divert blame away from them onto the victims of their policies.

 

They could just as easily have put the blame (rightly) on the big corporate tax dodgers who cost this country infinitely more than any benefit claimant ever could, but instead they have chosen to turn Britain into one of the major tax havens in the world.

 

It's far easier for the general public to understand Benefits, than the machinations of high finance and the extraordinary banking system. The government depend on this simplistic thinking to manipulate our values and attitudes. They realise that if they say something often enough we will start to regard it as the truth.

 

People should start investigating what they don't say. It's far more important.

[Cyclone]

We're in a culture where being unemployed is such a social stigma that it allows this to happen. The rules should be set up in such a way that isn't punitive, but supports people to find work. What impression do you think a man would make at an interview when he can't afford his bus fare, or even a breakfast to eat before his interview? It's fruitless.

 

What do you do then for (the small minority) of genuine malingerers. If they refuse to seek work and you won't let them go hungry, they've got you over a barrel...

[Chris_Sleeps]

What do you do then for (the small minority) of genuine malingerers. If they refuse to seek work and you won't let them go hungry, they've got you over a barrel...

There are other less-punitive options that don't involve removal of income. A quick example being to attend training courses to learn new skills, or to improve jobseeking skills.

 

Ultimately, though, that is the last line of my defence. What do I do if malingerers don't attend the day-schemes, if I won't punish them with no income? I don't know. I'm stuck. However, I don't think the benefit system works at its best when it is finding ways to punish people. It should be there to support the unemployed. I find it ideologically ugly that we've measured the unemployed to be so invaluable as to be worthy of no food.

 

There are further issues in that sanctions don't work to punish the malingerer. They punish people who fail to do set things; attend signing-on, apply for a set number of jobs. A man can work incredibly hard on one job application, and come close, and be sanctioned. Another man can knock off many applications for jobs he doesn't stand a chance in and not be sanctioned. It's not a precise system at all.

 

Also, sanctions punish the young and the mentally ill disportionately. In the latter case, this just creates more problems and more anxiety, and more cost.

 

There is interesting further reading from our very own Sheffield CAB about the problems around sanctions. It's complex. Experience Of

Jobseekers Allowance Sanctions

[Anna B]

There are other less-punitive options that don't involve removal of income. A quick example being to attend training courses to learn new skills, or to improve jobseeking skills.

 

Ultimately, though, that is the last line of my defence. What do I do if malingerers don't attend the day-schemes, if I won't punish them with no income? I don't know. I'm stuck. However, I don't think the benefit system works at its best when it is finding ways to punish people. It should be there to support the unemployed. I find it ideologically ugly that we've measured the unemployed to be so invaluable as to be worthy of no food.

 

There are further issues in that sanctions don't work to punish the malingerer. They punish people who fail to do set things; attend signing-on, apply for a set number of jobs. A man can work incredibly hard on one job application, and come close, and be sanctioned. Another man can knock off many applications for jobs he doesn't stand a chance in and not be sanctioned. It's not a precise system at all.

 

Also, sanctions punish the young and the mentally ill disportionately. In the latter case, this just creates more problems and more anxiety, and more cost.

 

There is interesting further reading from our very own Sheffield CAB about the problems around sanctions. It's complex. Experience Of

Jobseekers Allowance Sanctions

 

A good post.

 

I think we also have to remember that the number of 'malingerers' is actually very small. The publicity they receive makes them seem far more numourous then they are.

 

As for sanctions etc, I think you would get better results with more genuine help, rather than punishment. Self-esteem can be fragile, but essential in raising a persons chances of securing a job, yet current methods seem to be doing all they can to destroy it.

[onewheeldave]

Here's a link to a FOI request on the proportion of claiments who were sanctioned from 2007-2012. Note it's from the gov.uk site:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223287/foi_4383_2012.pdf

 

proportion sanctioned was 19%

 

i.e. from 2007-2012 almost 1 fifth of claiments were sanctioned.

 

I'm not willing to believe that 1/5th of those claiming were malingerers, or, incapable of turning up to appointments on time- are you?

 

I'm very capable of believing, as many have claimed, that they'd not received the letters informing them of said appointments, as I know that royal mail is far from 100% reliable, and, from personal experience, that the DWPs letters, sent 2nd class, and late, often, at the best of times, will arrive the day before, or, the same day, as the appointment.

 

It's a disgrace that decent human beings are denied the benefits they are legally entitled to, when they had not been informed of the appointment they missed, and, as usual, the DWP is totally unnacountable for it's abuse.

[Anna B]

Here's a link to a FOI request on the proportion of claiments who were sanctioned from 2007-2012. Note it's from the gov.uk site:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223287/foi_4383_2012.pdf

 

proportion sanctioned was 19%

 

i.e. from 2007-2012 almost 1 fifth of claiments were sanctioned.

 

I'm not willing to believe that 1/5th of those claiming were malingerers, or, incapable of turning up to appointments on time- are you?

 

I'm very capable of believing, as many have claimed, that they'd not received the letters informing them of said appointments, as I know that royal mail is far from 100% reliable, and, from personal experience, that the DWPs letters, sent 2nd class, and late, often, at the best of times, will arrive the day before, or, the same day, as the appointment.

 

It's a disgrace that decent human beings are denied the benefits they are legally entitled to, when they had not been informed of the appointment they missed, and, as usual, the DWP is totally unnacountable for it's abuse.

 

I Agree.

What sort of society are we that we can inflict such hardship on vulnerable people.

 

It's all about government targets. Jobcentres have to get x number off benefits. Sanctions is the easiest way to do it. And it makes it look like unemployment figures are falling.

 

Kick a man when he's down...

[Olive]

Perhaps when we pay our national insurance we should be asking the authorities to sign a contract to treat us with respect and dignity, should we need to make a claim on said insurance?

 

This is quite a one-way-street. We have no choice but to pay our premiums, but when we need to claim all manner of strings suddenly become attached.

 

Can you imagine if pensioners where required to jump through similar hoops to receive their payments?

 

I do think there ought to be some element of conditionality for out of work benefits, but these should be directed at long-term claimants, and be designed to help rather than hinder. The way they are delivered at the moment seems as if they are traps set for the unsuspecting. How does that help anyone?

Edited March 31, 2015 by Olive

[little keith]

the system stinks they make the rules up as they go ,they hit the poor by them not the rich bankers who get bonus for failure ,they do out to fiddle the figures and yes they have targets .if the ones behind the desk was in front of the desk they would not be so brash in sanctioning everything in sight as they do