[marcusfox]

(Original post by Martyn*)
That's a big difference to: punishing people with sanctions in order to get them back to work.

Well, that's only the editorial slant the Guardian journalists have put on the article and implied from what has really been going on.

Jobseekers can lose their benefits for up to 26 weeks for "refusal, without good cause" to attend an employment programme or carry out what is called a jobseeker's direction, a formal instruction to take certain action. They can also be punished for "refusing employment without good cause, or losing employment through misconduct".

Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.

That is why people are getting sanctioned. Guardian are anti Coalition, so it is in their interest to push the 'nasty Tories' line as much as possible in any story they print.

[marcusfox]

(Original post by gateshipone)
Martyn* - what about sanctions don't you understand? They're handed out when people don't seek work. The benefit they are claiming is jobSEEKERS Allowance. It's right there in the name that to get it you have to seek work.

Everyone who gets one can challenge it if they don't think it's fair. Someone on the other side of the country to them looks at the evidence the claimant and the Jobcentre provide and decide whether the sanction stands. Before you say it's biased, it's not. Plenty of sanctions are overturned if the claimant can provide more evidence to show they're following the rules.

There was someone in the comments section complaining about how a family member had been sanctioned and his claim closed because he had failed to attend the Jobcentre on his signing date. Apparently he wasn't able to attend his appointment because of a broken arm and was in hospital getting it seen to at the time.

This was after it took five days from the date he was supposed to attend the Jobcentre before they actually informed the Jobcentre why he hadn't attended.

Five days? No wonder they stopped his claim.

[blueray]

(Original post by crocker710)
What's your point?





probably because he's in his late 30s early 40s living at home in his mums basement eating cold beans straight from the tin. Hasn't done a days work in his life and is getting scared he'll be forced to.

A bit harsh? Much?

[gateshipone]

(Original post by marcusfox)
There was someone in the comments section complaining about how a family member had been sanctioned and his claim closed because he had failed to attend the Jobcentre on his signing date. Apparently he wasn't able to attend his appointment because of a broken arm and was in hospital getting it seen to at the time.

This was after it took five days from the date he was supposed to attend the Jobcentre before they actually informed the Jobcentre why he hadn't attended.

Five days? No wonder they stopped his claim.

That happens all the time. All they have to do is phone up and the Jobcentre can re-schedule their signing for the next day or excuse it if the reason is good enough. However, people would rather complain and act the victim!

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by Martyn*)
That's a big difference to: punishing people with sanctions in order to get them back to work.

Well, the idea is that those who are looking for work are more likely to find it than those who aren't and that if people know that failure to look for work results in sanctions, they will be more likely to look for work. In many cases the threat of sanctions is unnecessary, but sadly, there are people who feel that they are owed a living and choose not to look for work.

[OU Student]

(Original post by gateshipone)
That happens all the time. All they have to do is phone up and the Jobcentre can re-schedule their signing for the next day or excuse it if the reason is good enough. However, people would rather complain and act the victim!

Exactly. You can have up to 2 periods (I think each period can be 14 days) sick whilst on JSA per year. A form is then filled in explaining why you can't attend.

I've done it, it got accepted and I got a letter from the job centre explaining the rules to me.