Working full-time, fined by government for going on holiday!

[Cyclone]

You're missing the point I'm making.

 

If "the terms" for people claiming in work benefits make no allowance for people in work to use annual leave then the terms are, in my opinion, wrong. The terms need changing to allow people to use the annual leave to which they are legally entitled.

[Berberis]

You're missing the point I'm making.

 

If "the terms" for people claiming in work benefits make no allowance for people in work to use annual leave then the terms are, in my opinion, wrong. The terms need changing to allow people to use the annual leave to which they are legally entitled.

 

Why? She can still take time off work. There is no imperative for her to take a 2 week holiday in Spain.

[Cyclone]

Except that the time she takes off work, must (according to the agreement) be filled with job searching. The job searching for a JSA claimant fills the time in which they would otherwise be working. It seems entirely inappropriate to fill the annual leave of someone who IS working with an enforced job search. That's not "annual leave" at all.

[Berberis]

Except that the time she takes off work, must (according to the agreement) be filled with job searching. The job searching for a JSA claimant fills the time in which they would otherwise be working. It seems entirely inappropriate to fill the annual leave of someone who IS working with an enforced job search. That's not "annual leave" at all.

 

Do you think that people who are in receipt of benefits should be able to use these benefits to take 2 week holidays in Spain?

 

The 25 hours search is irrelevant as it's not policed and cannot be quantified by the DWP. Like I have said, this will be due to be unavailable for interviews in the period she was on holiday.

[Cyclone]

I think that people who are working should be able to use their legal annual leave as they wish. Whether they are gifted a trip to Spain, have saved up for a trip to Spain or can only afford to spend a fortnight working in their own garden is entirely irrelevant.

 

If someone is legally entitled to annual leave from work then the job centre should not schedule interviews to take place during that annual leave.

[Mister M]

Bloody SF search. Yeah it does seem a bit OTT but it's an online search, so there is no evidence. I know when I was a burden on the state, they just asked you for what searching had you done / what jobs had you applied for. It was a box ticking exercise. But it was more important to be available for interviews which I suspect is the main crux of this issue. If Smith was on holiday, she was unable to attend interviews which is part of the agreement/contract.

 

It seems as though a lot of these rules have been lifted directly from the Jobseekers agreement which is for people who have no job, which for this woman, it doesn't seem that fair, however she has been fulfilling this requirement up until the holiday, so it can't be impossible.

 

I was unemployed for a period of time, and as far as I recall, I refused to consider myself 'a burden on the state'.

Like many others I was aware of how others looked at me when I was going into West Street Job Centre, or the humiliating manner in which a post office staff member treated me when I collected my money - which was totally uncalled for.

 

I don't think people going through the Education system as burdens on the state, people with chronic illnesses as burdens on the state....

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2016 at 12:18 ----------

 

I think that people who are working should be able to use their legal annual leave as they wish. Whether they are gifted a trip to Spain, have saved up for a trip to Spain or can only afford to spend a fortnight working in their own garden is entirely irrelevant.

 

If someone is legally entitled to annual leave from work then the job centre should not schedule interviews to take place during that annual leave.

>>>>>>>>

I agree.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Mister M

[Berberis]

I think that people who are working should be able to use their legal annual leave as they wish. Whether they are gifted a trip to Spain, have saved up for a trip to Spain or can only afford to spend a fortnight working in their own garden is entirely irrelevant.

 

If someone is legally entitled to annual leave from work then the job centre should not schedule interviews to take place during that annual leave.

 

I agree, but your annual leave does not HAVE to be 2 weeks long, which is the case we are discussing.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2016 at 13:06 ----------

 

I was unemployed for a period of time, and as far as I recall, I refused to consider myself 'a burden on the state'.

 

That doesn't mean you are not though. I could refuse to consider myself a man but that wouldn't stop me from having a penis.

Like many others I was aware of how others looked at me when I was going into West Street Job Centre, or the humiliating manner in which a post office staff member treated me when I collected my money - which was totally uncalled for.

 

I agree, but your feelings do not have a bearing on this subject.

 

I don't think people going through the Education system as burdens on the state, people with chronic illnesses as burdens on the state....

 

To be honest these two examples are plain stupid. The benefits to the economy for people to be educated is well documented and others with chronic illnesses cannot work and are therefore not a burden either.

[Cyclone]

I agree, but your annual leave does not HAVE to be 2 weeks long, which is the case we are discussing.

Legally it's 28 days a year to be used as agreed with the employer. 2 weeks wouldn't be seen as unusual by anyone.

 

Using legally required annual leave, in a way that is in keeping with the norm and agreed with the employer should not attract any penalty with regards to in work benefits.

Do you actually disagree? Do you think that people claiming in work benefits should not be entitled to use annual leave? You've mentioned holidays to Spain, you've mentioned the fact that it was a fortnight, just come out and state what your opinion is...

[Berberis]

Legally it's 28 days a year to be used as agreed with the employer. 2 weeks wouldn't be seen as unusual by anyone.

 

Using legally required annual leave, in a way that is in keeping with the norm and agreed with the employer should not attract any penalty with regards to in work benefits.

Do you actually disagree? Do you think that people claiming in work benefits should not be entitled to use annual leave? You've mentioned holidays to Spain, you've mentioned the fact that it was a fortnight, just come out and state what your opinion is...

 

Legally if she works on average 30 hours a week she is entitled to 22.4 days holiday. Not 3.2 weeks, 22.4 days, which can be taken in smaller than week (or 2 week in this case) increments. The DWP is not stopping her from taking holiday. They refused to allow her to miss her appointment on 1 day of a week.

[Cyclone]

It can be taken however she agrees to take it with her employer. 2 weeks is entirely reasonable. 2 weeks being 8 days of course, not 10.

The DWP is requiring her to limit the way in which she uses her annual leave. It should not have any ability to do so IMO.

Out of interest, does the DWP also expect her to change her work patterns to attend interviews when they schedule them? If so, that's also entirely unreasonable.