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

[tinfoilhat]

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.

 

Totally agree with the last part. Messing employers out will help nobody.

[Berberis]

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.

 

I don't recall making any such claim.

 

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.

 

What rule is there that a holiday should be 2 weeks and taken in a foreign country? Also tell people working full time and not in receipt of UV that this women, working part time and receiving universal credit, is somehow entitled to 2 weeks in Spain.

 

We have two scenarios here:

 

1 - If this woman could afford to take this holiday without the money she receives in UV, she does not need the benefit.

2 - If this woman cannot afford to take her Spanish 2 week holiday without the UV money, she is using it for the wrong purposes and those of us who do not receive benefits should not be paying for peoples holidays!

 

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.

 

When I was unemployed they didn't not. If you had an interview at the time of your 2 weekly appointment, they rearranged it. Unless something has dramatically changed, which it appears it has not, this is not an issue.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2016 at 14:17 ----------

 

Totally agree with the last part. Messing employers out will help nobody.

 

Doesn't happen. Thats just conjecture and based on no experience or fact.

[Cyclone]

I don't recall making any such claim.

I didn't say you'd made a claim. I just made a statement about what was reasonable.

 

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.

That doesn't mention you at all.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2016 at 14:40 ----------

 

What rule is there that a holiday should be 2 weeks and taken in a foreign country?

What are you talking about? I made no such claim.

Also tell people working full time and not in receipt of UV that this women, working part time and receiving universal credit, is somehow entitled to 2 weeks in Spain.

I made no such claim.

 

We have two scenarios here:

 

1 - If this woman could afford to take this holiday without the money she receives in UV, she does not need the benefit.

Need has nothing to do with it AFAIK. She's either entitled to claim it or she isn't.

But that aside, perhaps she was gifted the holiday, or perhaps it was really cheap, or perhaps she saved for a decade to afford it.

2 - If this woman cannot afford to take her Spanish 2 week holiday without the UV money, she is using it for the wrong purposes and those of us who do not receive benefits should not be paying for peoples holidays!

So make a complaint about who qualifies for benefit then.

 

 

 

When I was unemployed they didn't not. If you had an interview at the time of your 2 weekly appointment, they rearranged it. Unless something has dramatically changed, which it appears it has not, this is not an issue.

Well since annual leave is the same as being at work, the DWP should not expect you to attend interviews whilst either at work or on leave from work.

 

You've descended into questioning whether she 'deserves' benefits and criticising the fact that she had a foreign holiday.

This is just typical benefit claimant bashing. You have no reasonable argument as to why someone on annual leave from work should be required to be attending interviews or doing job searches.

 

The fact of where she was is entirely irrelevant, she's employed and she's entitled to annual leave, the DWP should not require her to attend interviews or do job searches whilst on annual leave.

Edited April 19, 2016 by Cyclone

[Berberis]

The fact of where she was is entirely irrelevant, she's employed and she's entitled to annual leave, the DWP should not require her to attend interviews or do job searches whilst on annual leave.

 

I agree but she is not entitled to 2 weeks holiday in Spain, which is what people disagree with.

 

Ms Smith has a responsibility to provide for both her and her family. If she cannot, the state steps in, but the state is not required to pay for a holiday. The money is a safety net, not a lifestyle choice and the current government is trying to get some people out of this mentality.

[Cyclone]

Nobody but you cares that she went to Spain, that is not the issue or relevant.

 

She IS entitled to claim UC, she IS entitled to annual leave. The DWP should not IMO expect people to attend interviews or do job searching whilst either at work or on annual leave from work.

[Mister M]

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 ----------

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

But they are public services in the broad remit of the welfare state. In the main the unemployed are not a burden, nor should they feel a burden. There are also benefits to the economy from having a system of social security such as pensions, unemployment benefit etc.

[Cyclone]

The contract you sign with the DWP when receiving the Universal Credit and its predecessor benefits is that you are available to work. Going on holiday means you are not available to work. Simple.

 

If you are living off the state, you need to follow the rules. You can go on holiday whenever you like if you can support yourself financially.

 

This is the position you started from.

 

You confused "being on annual leave" with "going on holiday" and you persist in doing so.

 

You also stigmatise someone claiming in work benefits as "living off the state", not a helpful or mature approach to discussion.

[Berberis]

This is the position you started from.

 

You confused "being on annual leave" with "going on holiday" and you persist in doing so.

 

Im not, it's you who seem to insiste this women is entitled to a week/2 week holiday that means she is unable to attend her scheduled meeting. Im saying she can take holiday, just not while she is meant to be meeting with the DWP.

 

You also stigmatise someone claiming in work benefits as "living off the state", not a helpful or mature approach to discussion.

 

I stigmatised myself as people who are on unemployment benefits (not those or incapacity benefits etc) are a burden on the state. A burden is a "load" and if you think paying money to people who are contributing nothing back financially, as not a load on the state, you should take off the rose tinted glasses.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2016 at 15:32 ----------

 

But they are public services in the broad remit of the welfare state. In the main the unemployed are not a burden, nor should they feel a burden. There are also benefits to the economy from having a system of social security such as pensions, unemployment benefit etc.

 

You're muddying the waters again. No one is talking about pensioners.

 

What benefit to the economy do you think people in receipt of unemployment benefits make?

Edited April 19, 2016 by Berberis

[Cyclone]

I'm insisting that she is entitled to use her legally protected annual leave and still to be considered to be working. If they wouldn't schedule a meeting whilst she was rota'd onto a shift then they shouldn't schedule it when she has booked annual leave in place of work.

 

I didn't comment on whether they were a net cost to the state or not, I said that you stigmatised them using deliberately emotive language like "living off the state" and that this is unhelpful to a discussion.

[Berberis]

I didn't comment on whether they were a net cost to the state or not, I said that you stigmatised them using deliberately emotive language like "living off the state" and that this is unhelpful to a discussion.

 

Is using the word "burden", incorrect in this context?

 

BURDEN, noun, a load, typically a heavy one.