Dismayed at uncaring attitude of Job Centre staff

Dismayed at uncaring Job Centre staff

Dismayed at uncaring Job Centre staff

First published in Letters
Last updated

I HEARD recently of a young unemployed man who arrived at the Job Centre ten minutes late for an appointment and was told by the clerk she was suspending his benefit for a month as “punishment.”

No amount of apologising and explaining would change the official’s mind; she was stopping his payment and that was that.

I was both disgusted and dismayed to think our country has become so uncaring that a person in need can be so carelessly thrown into abject poverty, and for such a trivial reason.

I understand this case is far from unique; the Government covertly encourages its public sector minions to treat the unemployed like dirt, so making the claiming of benefit more of a trial than it already was.

No wonder so many thousands of people up and down the land are having to rely on food banks.

That a modern, wealthy nation like ours even HAS food banks should be an eternal source of burning shame for those responsible.

But I very much doubt that it is.

AJ by email.

Comments (35)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:39am Wed 26 Feb 14

robocoupe says...

If this young man is fortunate to find work, what do expect his employer to do if he arrived late for his shift or not at all? His pay would be docked for not attending work, if it continued he could face informal discussion or even discipline as a punishment and deterrent. You have to have governance if rules are broken, whether trivial or severe, or people will have no respect for policies or procedures. I wish this young person all the best in finding work, it is unlikely he will be late for an appointment again.
If this young man is fortunate to find work, what do expect his employer to do if he arrived late for his shift or not at all? His pay would be docked for not attending work, if it continued he could face informal discussion or even discipline as a punishment and deterrent. You have to have governance if rules are broken, whether trivial or severe, or people will have no respect for policies or procedures. I wish this young person all the best in finding work, it is unlikely he will be late for an appointment again. robocoupe
  • Score: -26

7:10pm Wed 26 Feb 14

Gaz-1988 says...

I think the job centre are being unfair they should give people a bit of leway and they might have a good reason like being sthck in traffic or the bus was late, we all know how unreliable buses are. I used to sign on at the job centre and they look for any little reason to sanction you and even twist what you say to make it sound better for them.
I think the job centre are being unfair they should give people a bit of leway and they might have a good reason like being sthck in traffic or the bus was late, we all know how unreliable buses are. I used to sign on at the job centre and they look for any little reason to sanction you and even twist what you say to make it sound better for them. Gaz-1988
  • Score: 25

9:04am Thu 27 Feb 14

hobroW says...

robocoupe wrote:
If this young man is fortunate to find work, what do expect his employer to do if he arrived late for his shift or not at all? His pay would be docked for not attending work, if it continued he could face informal discussion or even discipline as a punishment and deterrent. You have to have governance if rules are broken, whether trivial or severe, or people will have no respect for policies or procedures. I wish this young person all the best in finding work, it is unlikely he will be late for an appointment again.
The difference being that at work he would not be docked a full months pay. In fact he would have to collect several of these incidents in order to receive a warning and his employers would ever be mindful of employment law.

And here we are talking of subsistence not pof a pay cheque that lets you go to Comet to buy a new fridge/freezer or to Thomas Cook's to buy a holiday.
[quote][p][bold]robocoupe[/bold] wrote: If this young man is fortunate to find work, what do expect his employer to do if he arrived late for his shift or not at all? His pay would be docked for not attending work, if it continued he could face informal discussion or even discipline as a punishment and deterrent. You have to have governance if rules are broken, whether trivial or severe, or people will have no respect for policies or procedures. I wish this young person all the best in finding work, it is unlikely he will be late for an appointment again.[/p][/quote]The difference being that at work he would not be docked a full months pay. In fact he would have to collect several of these incidents in order to receive a warning and his employers would ever be mindful of employment law. And here we are talking of subsistence not pof a pay cheque that lets you go to Comet to buy a new fridge/freezer or to Thomas Cook's to buy a holiday. hobroW
  • Score: 20

7:03pm Thu 27 Feb 14

LuxUmbra says...

Made up story about hearsay? Total cobblers, grow up. I recently heard the earth was flat
Made up story about hearsay? Total cobblers, grow up. I recently heard the earth was flat LuxUmbra
  • Score: -17

9:14am Fri 28 Feb 14

uncatom says...

LuxUmbra wrote:
Made up story about hearsay? Total cobblers, grow up. I recently heard the earth was flat
I suppose it is total cobblers, that the DWP have been hounding a woman that is in a coma to find work, and that various other individuals have been penalised for slight infractions of the rules, it must be nice to be so righteous and sure of yourself.
[quote][p][bold]LuxUmbra[/bold] wrote: Made up story about hearsay? Total cobblers, grow up. I recently heard the earth was flat[/p][/quote]I suppose it is total cobblers, that the DWP have been hounding a woman that is in a coma to find work, and that various other individuals have been penalised for slight infractions of the rules, it must be nice to be so righteous and sure of yourself. uncatom
  • Score: 13

12:56pm Fri 28 Feb 14

ballacrain says...

This is a regular occurrence. For each person who does receive any benefit they are I think no longer classed as out of work and receiving said benefits.A very close friend of mine has been sanctioned several times and the reason,they said mail was sent to his address when it was not.
Ballacrain
This is a regular occurrence. For each person who does receive any benefit they are I think no longer classed as out of work and receiving said benefits.A very close friend of mine has been sanctioned several times and the reason,they said mail was sent to his address when it was not. Ballacrain ballacrain
  • Score: 14

4:56pm Fri 28 Feb 14

Positive thinker says...

No sympathy for the chap,couldn't imagine what the job centre staff
must have to put up with,you've only got to drive past the place and see
the local scals with there hands down there tracky bottoms smoking
Drinking talking crap.If I were to go somewhere once a week to sign for
my handout I would be up shaved showered and certainly on time oh and
with the correct attitude
No sympathy for the chap,couldn't imagine what the job centre staff must have to put up with,you've only got to drive past the place and see the local scals with there hands down there tracky bottoms smoking Drinking talking crap.If I were to go somewhere once a week to sign for my handout I would be up shaved showered and certainly on time oh and with the correct attitude Positive thinker
  • Score: -6

6:51pm Fri 28 Feb 14

sandals_wearer says...

http://stupidsanctio
ns.tumblr.com/
http://stupidsanctio ns.tumblr.com/ sandals_wearer
  • Score: 1

8:52pm Fri 28 Feb 14

PaulCa says...

Positive thinker wrote:
No sympathy for the chap,couldn't imagine what the job centre staff
must have to put up with,you've only got to drive past the place and see
the local scals with there hands down there tracky bottoms smoking
Drinking talking crap.If I were to go somewhere once a week to sign for
my handout I would be up shaved showered and certainly on time oh and
with the correct attitude
I agree with you on one point here PT... "couldn't imagine what the job centre staff must have to put up with..."

Bang on the nail there. Their jobs are made hell by a bullying employer with cruel, callous bastards at the helm - Duncan Smith and McVey.

Don't forget, these unemployed young people you freely criticise may one day be called upon to pay with their lives in the latest illegal war, whipped up by frenzied "public servants" in the House of Plenty, who are currently lining themselves up for a handsome pay rise, whilst stripping cash away from where it's needed - the good citizens who are doing their best to fend off avoidable poverty. (We are the seventh richest nation in the world.)

Think on PT. If your heroes in the DWP get fed up with your tiresome brown nosing and slap you down, you could quickly be cast onto the scrap heap yourself. And if that happens, don't come running for sympathy from this quarter.
[quote][p][bold]Positive thinker[/bold] wrote: No sympathy for the chap,couldn't imagine what the job centre staff must have to put up with,you've only got to drive past the place and see the local scals with there hands down there tracky bottoms smoking Drinking talking crap.If I were to go somewhere once a week to sign for my handout I would be up shaved showered and certainly on time oh and with the correct attitude[/p][/quote]I agree with you on one point here PT... "couldn't imagine what the job centre staff must have to put up with..." Bang on the nail there. Their jobs are made hell by a bullying employer with cruel, callous bastards at the helm - Duncan Smith and McVey. Don't forget, these unemployed young people you freely criticise may one day be called upon to pay with their lives in the latest illegal war, whipped up by frenzied "public servants" in the House of Plenty, who are currently lining themselves up for a handsome pay rise, whilst stripping cash away from where it's needed - the good citizens who are doing their best to fend off avoidable poverty. (We are the seventh richest nation in the world.) Think on PT. If your heroes in the DWP get fed up with your tiresome brown nosing and slap you down, you could quickly be cast onto the scrap heap yourself. And if that happens, don't come running for sympathy from this quarter. PaulCa
  • Score: 12

9:50am Sat 1 Mar 14

GWB1983 says...

The real problem here is that Sanctions are a breach of Human Rights and as such all Job Centre Workers, IDS and Ester McVey are criminals for imposing them and as such should be charged with crimes against the state, the state being you and me.

We would soon be up in arms if this kind of thing was taking place anywhere else, but for some unknown reason not here; what society do we want when we say it is ok to starve and make people homeless via punitive sanctions for stupid reasons or worse when a family member has died.

The Sanction Centre's are there to carry out these attacks, they are no better than the Nazi's at the death camps who claimed they were only following orders, just does not wash at all
The real problem here is that Sanctions are a breach of Human Rights and as such all Job Centre Workers, IDS and Ester McVey are criminals for imposing them and as such should be charged with crimes against the state, the state being you and me. We would soon be up in arms if this kind of thing was taking place anywhere else, but for some unknown reason not here; what society do we want when we say it is ok to starve and make people homeless via punitive sanctions for stupid reasons or worse when a family member has died. The Sanction Centre's are there to carry out these attacks, they are no better than the Nazi's at the death camps who claimed they were only following orders, just does not wash at all GWB1983
  • Score: 11

10:00am Sat 1 Mar 14

GWB1983 says...

Further to my earlier post, I thought the idea was that people where meant to prove they are looking for work, but it now seems they get Sanctioned for anything other than looking for work.

For example being late (bet they have been late but don't lose wages for a month or more), spelling mistakes (yes it really happened), two letters sent out with same time appointments and refusal to cancel one (no win situation), family member passes away they get you to sign a piece of paper and tell you your covered for missing signing on times only for said paper to suddenly not be their and a lovely sanction is imposed.

I could go on but people really do need to start opening their eyes and seeing what is going on, look at how poverty has increased since these benefit cuts; and why sanction people and then send them to food banks does this not prove they know that they are starving people and as such is a breach of human rights, which states we all have the right to have food and a roof over our heads.
Now you see why this Government want out of the Human Rights, something by the way Great Britain championed.
Further to my earlier post, I thought the idea was that people where meant to prove they are looking for work, but it now seems they get Sanctioned for anything other than looking for work. For example being late (bet they have been late but don't lose wages for a month or more), spelling mistakes (yes it really happened), two letters sent out with same time appointments and refusal to cancel one (no win situation), family member passes away they get you to sign a piece of paper and tell you your covered for missing signing on times only for said paper to suddenly not be their and a lovely sanction is imposed. I could go on but people really do need to start opening their eyes and seeing what is going on, look at how poverty has increased since these benefit cuts; and why sanction people and then send them to food banks does this not prove they know that they are starving people and as such is a breach of human rights, which states we all have the right to have food and a roof over our heads. Now you see why this Government want out of the Human Rights, something by the way Great Britain championed. GWB1983
  • Score: 8

10:11am Sat 1 Mar 14

GWB1983 says...

Positive thinker wrote:
No sympathy for the chap,couldn't imagine what the job centre staff
must have to put up with,you've only got to drive past the place and see
the local scals with there hands down there tracky bottoms smoking
Drinking talking crap.If I were to go somewhere once a week to sign for
my handout I would be up shaved showered and certainly on time oh and
with the correct attitude
I'm all right jack, that is until it happens to you, and no amount of saying I'll find work with a click of the fingers works, the Sanction Centre Staff are not their to help you but to bully and then to sanction.

They can give you 40 jobs to look for and you find 39, they sanction you, they tell you when you first sign on that you must sign and agreement but you have no input as they tell you what their giving you and refusal to agree means no benefit.

You may have worked all your life but now you are classed as a low life and as such can be booted from one pillar to the next, by the way the DWP own job finds is listed under Para:18 (1) as just 2 jobs a week, strange how they impose more than that needs looking into really.

So PT stop kicking people when their down and stop demonizing them with the usual Tory nonsense of all drinking and hand down trackies; it just shows how gullible you really are to take on all the Tory propaganda.
[quote][p][bold]Positive thinker[/bold] wrote: No sympathy for the chap,couldn't imagine what the job centre staff must have to put up with,you've only got to drive past the place and see the local scals with there hands down there tracky bottoms smoking Drinking talking crap.If I were to go somewhere once a week to sign for my handout I would be up shaved showered and certainly on time oh and with the correct attitude[/p][/quote]I'm all right jack, that is until it happens to you, and no amount of saying I'll find work with a click of the fingers works, the Sanction Centre Staff are not their to help you but to bully and then to sanction. They can give you 40 jobs to look for and you find 39, they sanction you, they tell you when you first sign on that you must sign and agreement but you have no input as they tell you what their giving you and refusal to agree means no benefit. You may have worked all your life but now you are classed as a low life and as such can be booted from one pillar to the next, by the way the DWP own job finds is listed under Para:18 (1) as just 2 jobs a week, strange how they impose more than that needs looking into really. So PT stop kicking people when their down and stop demonizing them with the usual Tory nonsense of all drinking and hand down trackies; it just shows how gullible you really are to take on all the Tory propaganda. GWB1983
  • Score: 9

10:17am Sat 1 Mar 14

Positive thinker says...

Iam not knocking them all,never have done and never will iam talking
about the HARDCORE of bums who take take take
Iam not knocking them all,never have done and never will iam talking about the HARDCORE of bums who take take take Positive thinker
  • Score: -8

3:55pm Sat 1 Mar 14

hobroW says...

A whistleblower is credited with being a "genius" by start-ups,a little over ,indeed a long way over the top; receives perfect scores delivering lectures to start-ups; corrects a multitude of errors by other advisors YET becomes redundant. His job prospects are ruined whilst his allegations are not proven; he receives a private letter of vindication 1 year after his redundancy and has an Employment Tribunal 17 months after the same.Publicly, vindication is received 16 months after being redundant with no references.Without vindiucation no employer will consider him.

Now is he a bum? I daresay M Morton is or was in a similar position.

Some might argue that the wages of doing the right thing are no job prospects.

Certainly during my experience of DWP I had nothing but politeness from the staff and friendliness. It was not an unpleasant experience but had I not many weeks supplanted dole with earnings (dole reduced by sum of earnings weekly less £10) and awards then I would have found it financially a terrible experience. I cannot conceive there is any need for sanctons for I cannot believe any but a small minority would wish to subsist on dole by choice.

If persons do so elect then we should not persecute them for we are merely awarding them the right simply to subsist.
A whistleblower is credited with being a "genius" by start-ups,a little over ,indeed a long way over the top; receives perfect scores delivering lectures to start-ups; corrects a multitude of errors by other advisors YET becomes redundant. His job prospects are ruined whilst his allegations are not proven; he receives a private letter of vindication 1 year after his redundancy and has an Employment Tribunal 17 months after the same.Publicly, vindication is received 16 months after being redundant with no references.Without vindiucation no employer will consider him. Now is he a bum? I daresay M Morton is or was in a similar position. Some might argue that the wages of doing the right thing are no job prospects. Certainly during my experience of DWP I had nothing but politeness from the staff and friendliness. It was not an unpleasant experience but had I not many weeks supplanted dole with earnings (dole reduced by sum of earnings weekly less £10) and awards then I would have found it financially a terrible experience. I cannot conceive there is any need for sanctons for I cannot believe any but a small minority would wish to subsist on dole by choice. If persons do so elect then we should not persecute them for we are merely awarding them the right simply to subsist. hobroW
  • Score: 6

7:25pm Sat 1 Mar 14

GWB1983 says...

Positive thinker wrote:
Iam not knocking them all,never have done and never will iam talking
about the HARDCORE of bums who take take take
I know who you mean all at Tory HQ and the donors, your right they take take take and then demonise those in need so you don't notice what their doing.
[quote][p][bold]Positive thinker[/bold] wrote: Iam not knocking them all,never have done and never will iam talking about the HARDCORE of bums who take take take[/p][/quote]I know who you mean all at Tory HQ and the donors, your right they take take take and then demonise those in need so you don't notice what their doing. GWB1983
  • Score: 3

7:28pm Sat 1 Mar 14

GWB1983 says...

hobroW wrote:
A whistleblower is credited with being a "genius" by start-ups,a little over ,indeed a long way over the top; receives perfect scores delivering lectures to start-ups; corrects a multitude of errors by other advisors YET becomes redundant. His job prospects are ruined whilst his allegations are not proven; he receives a private letter of vindication 1 year after his redundancy and has an Employment Tribunal 17 months after the same.Publicly, vindication is received 16 months after being redundant with no references.Without vindiucation no employer will consider him.

Now is he a bum? I daresay M Morton is or was in a similar position.

Some might argue that the wages of doing the right thing are no job prospects.

Certainly during my experience of DWP I had nothing but politeness from the staff and friendliness. It was not an unpleasant experience but had I not many weeks supplanted dole with earnings (dole reduced by sum of earnings weekly less £10) and awards then I would have found it financially a terrible experience. I cannot conceive there is any need for sanctons for I cannot believe any but a small minority would wish to subsist on dole by choice.

If persons do so elect then we should not persecute them for we are merely awarding them the right simply to subsist.
Nicely put.
[quote][p][bold]hobroW[/bold] wrote: A whistleblower is credited with being a "genius" by start-ups,a little over ,indeed a long way over the top; receives perfect scores delivering lectures to start-ups; corrects a multitude of errors by other advisors YET becomes redundant. His job prospects are ruined whilst his allegations are not proven; he receives a private letter of vindication 1 year after his redundancy and has an Employment Tribunal 17 months after the same.Publicly, vindication is received 16 months after being redundant with no references.Without vindiucation no employer will consider him. Now is he a bum? I daresay M Morton is or was in a similar position. Some might argue that the wages of doing the right thing are no job prospects. Certainly during my experience of DWP I had nothing but politeness from the staff and friendliness. It was not an unpleasant experience but had I not many weeks supplanted dole with earnings (dole reduced by sum of earnings weekly less £10) and awards then I would have found it financially a terrible experience. I cannot conceive there is any need for sanctons for I cannot believe any but a small minority would wish to subsist on dole by choice. If persons do so elect then we should not persecute them for we are merely awarding them the right simply to subsist.[/p][/quote]Nicely put. GWB1983
  • Score: 1

8:39am Sun 2 Mar 14

hobroW says...

I am encouraged to write more.

Why not make a comparison on a local basis?

We have had multiple council officers paid sums in excess of £100,000 in order to go away after scandals. For them there has been no sanction, no punishment just a bribe to disappear. We have Service Providers who in contrast to an "On the Spot" penalty, have been investigated for nearly three years, and still no sanction.

On a pure budgetary consideration should we treat claimants as recommended by the European Union, and as dismissed by Duncan Smith, there would be no money left to over-reward the unworthy with huge payouts. Now that would be a fraternal re-balancing. No more tales of BBC staff collaborating to reward each other obscene payouts; no more police officers claiming discrimination and £50k, no more quango heads on up to £500k per annum.

Ask yourself what rewards are being paid to Service Providers like A4e to find work for the unemployed and why they have found it necessary to cheat; or indeed the lady recently on NW tonight with her dummy apprentices and claiming for long-gone claimants. Re-balancing, re-balancing...
I am encouraged to write more. Why not make a comparison on a local basis? We have had multiple council officers paid sums in excess of £100,000 in order to go away after scandals. For them there has been no sanction, no punishment just a bribe to disappear. We have Service Providers who in contrast to an "On the Spot" penalty, have been investigated for nearly three years, and still no sanction. On a pure budgetary consideration should we treat claimants as recommended by the European Union, and as dismissed by Duncan Smith, there would be no money left to over-reward the unworthy with huge payouts. Now that would be a fraternal re-balancing. No more tales of BBC staff collaborating to reward each other obscene payouts; no more police officers claiming discrimination and £50k, no more quango heads on up to £500k per annum. Ask yourself what rewards are being paid to Service Providers like A4e to find work for the unemployed and why they have found it necessary to cheat; or indeed the lady recently on NW tonight with her dummy apprentices and claiming for long-gone claimants. Re-balancing, re-balancing... hobroW
  • Score: 5

9:54am Sun 2 Mar 14

ordinary personn says...

I may be wrong but wasn't Kevin Adderley a Jobcentreplus district manager before he joined Wirral Borough Council?
I may be wrong but wasn't Kevin Adderley a Jobcentreplus district manager before he joined Wirral Borough Council? ordinary personn
  • Score: 0

10:33am Sun 2 Mar 14

PaulCa says...

ordinary personn wrote:
I may be wrong but wasn't Kevin Adderley a Jobcentreplus district manager before he joined Wirral Borough Council?
Yes. Here is your link:

http://govknow.com/s
peaker.html?type=con
ference_speaker&id=3
79
[quote][p][bold]ordinary personn[/bold] wrote: I may be wrong but wasn't Kevin Adderley a Jobcentreplus district manager before he joined Wirral Borough Council?[/p][/quote]Yes. Here is your link: http://govknow.com/s peaker.html?type=con ference_speaker&id=3 79 PaulCa
  • Score: -1

10:48am Sun 2 Mar 14

hobroW says...

From PaulCA link

Kevin designed Wirral’s Investment Strategy in 2007 and has driven it forward over the last 5 years with significant success.

Yolu may find that the research was farmed out to Regeneris Consulting who prepared 2 reports. Their recommendations were what to do with £30m of central govt money awarded because of comparative deprivation. It was called "Working Neighbourhoods" and £10m went to wirralbiz. You can still find these reports on the web.

You must draw inferences from this positing of what was DWP money and any results flowing from its placement. at all times Mr Addrerley remained in control, if I may use that word loosely.
From PaulCA link Kevin designed Wirral’s Investment Strategy in 2007 and has driven it forward over the last 5 years with significant success. Yolu may find that the research was farmed out to Regeneris Consulting who prepared 2 reports. Their recommendations were what to do with £30m of central govt money awarded because of comparative deprivation. It was called "Working Neighbourhoods" and £10m went to wirralbiz. You can still find these reports on the web. You must draw inferences from this positing of what was DWP money and any results flowing from its placement. at all times Mr Addrerley remained in control, if I may use that word loosely. hobroW
  • Score: 1

1:13pm Sun 2 Mar 14

robocoupe says...

hobroW wrote:
robocoupe wrote:
If this young man is fortunate to find work, what do expect his employer to do if he arrived late for his shift or not at all? His pay would be docked for not attending work, if it continued he could face informal discussion or even discipline as a punishment and deterrent. You have to have governance if rules are broken, whether trivial or severe, or people will have no respect for policies or procedures. I wish this young person all the best in finding work, it is unlikely he will be late for an appointment again.
The difference being that at work he would not be docked a full months pay. In fact he would have to collect several of these incidents in order to receive a warning and his employers would ever be mindful of employment law.

And here we are talking of subsistence not pof a pay cheque that lets you go to Comet to buy a new fridge/freezer or to Thomas Cook's to buy a holiday.
Whilst some would argue that the severity of the punishment meted out by DWP may need revisiting, my point was more about rules and procedures.

For example, if job centre staff have seven hourly interviews to achieve per day and the first six to be interviewed are late, is it fair to delay interviewee number seven who is on time? In my opinion, no!

So as I stated in my post, you have to have governance.
[quote][p][bold]hobroW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robocoupe[/bold] wrote: If this young man is fortunate to find work, what do expect his employer to do if he arrived late for his shift or not at all? His pay would be docked for not attending work, if it continued he could face informal discussion or even discipline as a punishment and deterrent. You have to have governance if rules are broken, whether trivial or severe, or people will have no respect for policies or procedures. I wish this young person all the best in finding work, it is unlikely he will be late for an appointment again.[/p][/quote]The difference being that at work he would not be docked a full months pay. In fact he would have to collect several of these incidents in order to receive a warning and his employers would ever be mindful of employment law. And here we are talking of subsistence not pof a pay cheque that lets you go to Comet to buy a new fridge/freezer or to Thomas Cook's to buy a holiday.[/p][/quote]Whilst some would argue that the severity of the punishment meted out by DWP may need revisiting, my point was more about rules and procedures. For example, if job centre staff have seven hourly interviews to achieve per day and the first six to be interviewed are late, is it fair to delay interviewee number seven who is on time? In my opinion, no! So as I stated in my post, you have to have governance. robocoupe
  • Score: 0

8:48pm Sun 2 Mar 14

GWB1983 says...

robocoupe wrote:
hobroW wrote:
robocoupe wrote:
If this young man is fortunate to find work, what do expect his employer to do if he arrived late for his shift or not at all? His pay would be docked for not attending work, if it continued he could face informal discussion or even discipline as a punishment and deterrent. You have to have governance if rules are broken, whether trivial or severe, or people will have no respect for policies or procedures. I wish this young person all the best in finding work, it is unlikely he will be late for an appointment again.
The difference being that at work he would not be docked a full months pay. In fact he would have to collect several of these incidents in order to receive a warning and his employers would ever be mindful of employment law.

And here we are talking of subsistence not pof a pay cheque that lets you go to Comet to buy a new fridge/freezer or to Thomas Cook's to buy a holiday.
Whilst some would argue that the severity of the punishment meted out by DWP may need revisiting, my point was more about rules and procedures.

For example, if job centre staff have seven hourly interviews to achieve per day and the first six to be interviewed are late, is it fair to delay interviewee number seven who is on time? In my opinion, no!

So as I stated in my post, you have to have governance.
So for being late 10 minutes he gets sanctioned, but the Advisor at said Sanction Centre is late and holds up all interviewees does not get their wages Sanctioned for a month, you seem to miss the point here; in any event they advisors giving out sanctions are in serious breach of the Human Rights act and as such are criminals for imposing them and they can't hide behind the old excuse 'I was only doing my job' for the Nazi's at the death camps claimed that one as well.
[quote][p][bold]robocoupe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hobroW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robocoupe[/bold] wrote: If this young man is fortunate to find work, what do expect his employer to do if he arrived late for his shift or not at all? His pay would be docked for not attending work, if it continued he could face informal discussion or even discipline as a punishment and deterrent. You have to have governance if rules are broken, whether trivial or severe, or people will have no respect for policies or procedures. I wish this young person all the best in finding work, it is unlikely he will be late for an appointment again.[/p][/quote]The difference being that at work he would not be docked a full months pay. In fact he would have to collect several of these incidents in order to receive a warning and his employers would ever be mindful of employment law. And here we are talking of subsistence not pof a pay cheque that lets you go to Comet to buy a new fridge/freezer or to Thomas Cook's to buy a holiday.[/p][/quote]Whilst some would argue that the severity of the punishment meted out by DWP may need revisiting, my point was more about rules and procedures. For example, if job centre staff have seven hourly interviews to achieve per day and the first six to be interviewed are late, is it fair to delay interviewee number seven who is on time? In my opinion, no! So as I stated in my post, you have to have governance.[/p][/quote]So for being late 10 minutes he gets sanctioned, but the Advisor at said Sanction Centre is late and holds up all interviewees does not get their wages Sanctioned for a month, you seem to miss the point here; in any event they advisors giving out sanctions are in serious breach of the Human Rights act and as such are criminals for imposing them and they can't hide behind the old excuse 'I was only doing my job' for the Nazi's at the death camps claimed that one as well. GWB1983
  • Score: 6

10:20pm Sun 2 Mar 14

robocoupe says...

GWB1983 wrote:
robocoupe wrote:
hobroW wrote:
robocoupe wrote:
If this young man is fortunate to find work, what do expect his employer to do if he arrived late for his shift or not at all? His pay would be docked for not attending work, if it continued he could face informal discussion or even discipline as a punishment and deterrent. You have to have governance if rules are broken, whether trivial or severe, or people will have no respect for policies or procedures. I wish this young person all the best in finding work, it is unlikely he will be late for an appointment again.
The difference being that at work he would not be docked a full months pay. In fact he would have to collect several of these incidents in order to receive a warning and his employers would ever be mindful of employment law.

And here we are talking of subsistence not pof a pay cheque that lets you go to Comet to buy a new fridge/freezer or to Thomas Cook's to buy a holiday.
Whilst some would argue that the severity of the punishment meted out by DWP may need revisiting, my point was more about rules and procedures.

For example, if job centre staff have seven hourly interviews to achieve per day and the first six to be interviewed are late, is it fair to delay interviewee number seven who is on time? In my opinion, no!

So as I stated in my post, you have to have governance.
So for being late 10 minutes he gets sanctioned, but the Advisor at said Sanction Centre is late and holds up all interviewees does not get their wages Sanctioned for a month, you seem to miss the point here; in any event they advisors giving out sanctions are in serious breach of the Human Rights act and as such are criminals for imposing them and they can't hide behind the old excuse 'I was only doing my job' for the Nazi's at the death camps claimed that one as well.
This IS deep!

I am not talking about gassing someone, you have to have rules.

Do you not see my point?
[quote][p][bold]GWB1983[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robocoupe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hobroW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robocoupe[/bold] wrote: If this young man is fortunate to find work, what do expect his employer to do if he arrived late for his shift or not at all? His pay would be docked for not attending work, if it continued he could face informal discussion or even discipline as a punishment and deterrent. You have to have governance if rules are broken, whether trivial or severe, or people will have no respect for policies or procedures. I wish this young person all the best in finding work, it is unlikely he will be late for an appointment again.[/p][/quote]The difference being that at work he would not be docked a full months pay. In fact he would have to collect several of these incidents in order to receive a warning and his employers would ever be mindful of employment law. And here we are talking of subsistence not pof a pay cheque that lets you go to Comet to buy a new fridge/freezer or to Thomas Cook's to buy a holiday.[/p][/quote]Whilst some would argue that the severity of the punishment meted out by DWP may need revisiting, my point was more about rules and procedures. For example, if job centre staff have seven hourly interviews to achieve per day and the first six to be interviewed are late, is it fair to delay interviewee number seven who is on time? In my opinion, no! So as I stated in my post, you have to have governance.[/p][/quote]So for being late 10 minutes he gets sanctioned, but the Advisor at said Sanction Centre is late and holds up all interviewees does not get their wages Sanctioned for a month, you seem to miss the point here; in any event they advisors giving out sanctions are in serious breach of the Human Rights act and as such are criminals for imposing them and they can't hide behind the old excuse 'I was only doing my job' for the Nazi's at the death camps claimed that one as well.[/p][/quote]This IS deep! I am not talking about gassing someone, you have to have rules. Do you not see my point? robocoupe
  • Score: 0

11:39pm Sun 2 Mar 14

hobroW says...

Rules is rules and an appropriate sanction is defensible.Appropria
te is proportionate to the benefit received so perhaps a fiver?
Rules is rules and an appropriate sanction is defensible.Appropria te is proportionate to the benefit received so perhaps a fiver? hobroW
  • Score: 2

12:16am Mon 3 Mar 14

PaulCa says...

If on the one hand MPs are about to grant themselves an 11% pay rise and on the other, defenceless UK citizens are being ground into the dirt and made to feel worthless, there is something desperately and fatally WRONG with this country.

Sometimes, I feel SO ashamed to live here.
If on the one hand MPs are about to grant themselves an 11% pay rise and on the other, defenceless UK citizens are being ground into the dirt and made to feel worthless, there is something desperately and fatally WRONG with this country. Sometimes, I feel SO ashamed to live here. PaulCa
  • Score: 3

10:13pm Mon 3 Mar 14

GWB1983 says...

robocoupe wrote:
GWB1983 wrote:
robocoupe wrote:
hobroW wrote:
robocoupe wrote:
If this young man is fortunate to find work, what do expect his employer to do if he arrived late for his shift or not at all? His pay would be docked for not attending work, if it continued he could face informal discussion or even discipline as a punishment and deterrent. You have to have governance if rules are broken, whether trivial or severe, or people will have no respect for policies or procedures. I wish this young person all the best in finding work, it is unlikely he will be late for an appointment again.
The difference being that at work he would not be docked a full months pay. In fact he would have to collect several of these incidents in order to receive a warning and his employers would ever be mindful of employment law.

And here we are talking of subsistence not pof a pay cheque that lets you go to Comet to buy a new fridge/freezer or to Thomas Cook's to buy a holiday.
Whilst some would argue that the severity of the punishment meted out by DWP may need revisiting, my point was more about rules and procedures.

For example, if job centre staff have seven hourly interviews to achieve per day and the first six to be interviewed are late, is it fair to delay interviewee number seven who is on time? In my opinion, no!

So as I stated in my post, you have to have governance.
So for being late 10 minutes he gets sanctioned, but the Advisor at said Sanction Centre is late and holds up all interviewees does not get their wages Sanctioned for a month, you seem to miss the point here; in any event they advisors giving out sanctions are in serious breach of the Human Rights act and as such are criminals for imposing them and they can't hide behind the old excuse 'I was only doing my job' for the Nazi's at the death camps claimed that one as well.
This IS deep!

I am not talking about gassing someone, you have to have rules.

Do you not see my point?
Yes rules are rules, but if they are wrong they should be broke, and in the case of benefit sanctions they are wrong, JCP advisors have sanctioned people for spelling mistakes in the proof of looking for work log book; just what has that got to do with looking for work.

But more to the point JCP advisor late for work, claimants kept waiting to sign on, does advisor get sanctioned for holding up all those people their meant to see, guess not; so why someone claiming.
[quote][p][bold]robocoupe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GWB1983[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robocoupe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hobroW[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]robocoupe[/bold] wrote: If this young man is fortunate to find work, what do expect his employer to do if he arrived late for his shift or not at all? His pay would be docked for not attending work, if it continued he could face informal discussion or even discipline as a punishment and deterrent. You have to have governance if rules are broken, whether trivial or severe, or people will have no respect for policies or procedures. I wish this young person all the best in finding work, it is unlikely he will be late for an appointment again.[/p][/quote]The difference being that at work he would not be docked a full months pay. In fact he would have to collect several of these incidents in order to receive a warning and his employers would ever be mindful of employment law. And here we are talking of subsistence not pof a pay cheque that lets you go to Comet to buy a new fridge/freezer or to Thomas Cook's to buy a holiday.[/p][/quote]Whilst some would argue that the severity of the punishment meted out by DWP may need revisiting, my point was more about rules and procedures. For example, if job centre staff have seven hourly interviews to achieve per day and the first six to be interviewed are late, is it fair to delay interviewee number seven who is on time? In my opinion, no! So as I stated in my post, you have to have governance.[/p][/quote]So for being late 10 minutes he gets sanctioned, but the Advisor at said Sanction Centre is late and holds up all interviewees does not get their wages Sanctioned for a month, you seem to miss the point here; in any event they advisors giving out sanctions are in serious breach of the Human Rights act and as such are criminals for imposing them and they can't hide behind the old excuse 'I was only doing my job' for the Nazi's at the death camps claimed that one as well.[/p][/quote]This IS deep! I am not talking about gassing someone, you have to have rules. Do you not see my point?[/p][/quote]Yes rules are rules, but if they are wrong they should be broke, and in the case of benefit sanctions they are wrong, JCP advisors have sanctioned people for spelling mistakes in the proof of looking for work log book; just what has that got to do with looking for work. But more to the point JCP advisor late for work, claimants kept waiting to sign on, does advisor get sanctioned for holding up all those people their meant to see, guess not; so why someone claiming. GWB1983
  • Score: 1

2:22pm Tue 4 Mar 14

artemis81 says...

PaulCa wrote:
ordinary personn wrote:
I may be wrong but wasn't Kevin Adderley a Jobcentreplus district manager before he joined Wirral Borough Council?
Yes. Here is your link:

http://govknow.com/s

peaker.html?type=con

ference_speaker&
id=3
79
Not being funny, OP or Paul, but what relevance is this to the story?
[quote][p][bold]PaulCa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ordinary personn[/bold] wrote: I may be wrong but wasn't Kevin Adderley a Jobcentreplus district manager before he joined Wirral Borough Council?[/p][/quote]Yes. Here is your link: http://govknow.com/s peaker.html?type=con ference_speaker& id=3 79[/p][/quote]Not being funny, OP or Paul, but what relevance is this to the story? artemis81
  • Score: 0

2:49pm Tue 4 Mar 14

hobroW says...

artemis81 wrote:
PaulCa wrote:
ordinary personn wrote:
I may be wrong but wasn't Kevin Adderley a Jobcentreplus district manager before he joined Wirral Borough Council?
Yes. Here is your link:

http://govknow.com/s


peaker.html?type=con


ference_speaker&

id=3
79
Not being funny, OP or Paul, but what relevance is this to the story?
Perhaps PCA is pointing out a link between actions dictated by senior management of DWP, which Bishops have spoken out against, and the export of a mindset to WBC. Certainly he is pointing out that KA actions may not be irreproachable as he designed the Wirral Investment Strategy , the BIG program, of which over £10m went to a subcontractor whose firm has cost something like £100,000 in investigation fees.

I guess it is pointing out the temerity of officials in high places who "waste" millions rather than claiming buttons in benefit.

That is my take on it. Sanctions for the little people, none for senior managements
[quote][p][bold]artemis81[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]PaulCa[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ordinary personn[/bold] wrote: I may be wrong but wasn't Kevin Adderley a Jobcentreplus district manager before he joined Wirral Borough Council?[/p][/quote]Yes. Here is your link: http://govknow.com/s peaker.html?type=con ference_speaker& id=3 79[/p][/quote]Not being funny, OP or Paul, but what relevance is this to the story?[/p][/quote]Perhaps PCA is pointing out a link between actions dictated by senior management of DWP, which Bishops have spoken out against, and the export of a mindset to WBC. Certainly he is pointing out that KA actions may not be irreproachable as he designed the Wirral Investment Strategy , the BIG program, of which over £10m went to a subcontractor whose firm has cost something like £100,000 in investigation fees. I guess it is pointing out the temerity of officials in high places who "waste" millions rather than claiming buttons in benefit. That is my take on it. Sanctions for the little people, none for senior managements hobroW
  • Score: 1

3:01pm Tue 4 Mar 14

PaulCa says...

Fully with you on that one Mr H. The all seeing eye of the "big brother" power abusing state / establishment is focused on those who threaten it most - the masses.

It's a means of expressing the hypocrisy of not just high office holders, but those who serve to protect, promote and enhance the status quo. And here's another rhetorical question, needing no answer:

"How many solicitors busy drawing up zero hour contracts are ON ZERO HOURS CONTRACTS THEMSELVES?"
Fully with you on that one Mr H. The all seeing eye of the "big brother" power abusing state / establishment is focused on those who threaten it most - the masses. It's a means of expressing the hypocrisy of not just high office holders, but those who serve to protect, promote and enhance the status quo. And here's another rhetorical question, needing no answer: "How many solicitors busy drawing up zero hour contracts are ON ZERO HOURS CONTRACTS THEMSELVES?" PaulCa
  • Score: 2

3:11pm Tue 4 Mar 14

artemis81 says...

I'm still not sure I get it, but I thank you for taking the trouble for explaining!
I'm still not sure I get it, but I thank you for taking the trouble for explaining! artemis81
  • Score: -1

4:06pm Tue 4 Mar 14

keen gardener says...

FACT: A number of years ago I overheard a Civil Servant (yes, I was contributing to her over-inflated salary) refer to those attending Job Centres as "PUNTERS". I sincerely hope, as a result of the subsequent conversation we had, that she did not use such an inappropriate reference again. Doubit it but I tried my best!

Unfortunately it is a numbers game and there are some who lose touch with "human" reality and all that it may involve.
FACT: A number of years ago I overheard a Civil Servant (yes, I was contributing to her over-inflated salary) refer to those attending Job Centres as "PUNTERS". I sincerely hope, as a result of the subsequent conversation we had, that she did not use such an inappropriate reference again. Doubit it but I tried my best! Unfortunately it is a numbers game and there are some who lose touch with "human" reality and all that it may involve. keen gardener
  • Score: 1

4:21pm Tue 4 Mar 14

hobroW says...

keen gardener wrote:
FACT: A number of years ago I overheard a Civil Servant (yes, I was contributing to her over-inflated salary) refer to those attending Job Centres as "PUNTERS". I sincerely hope, as a result of the subsequent conversation we had, that she did not use such an inappropriate reference again. Doubit it but I tried my best!

Unfortunately it is a numbers game and there are some who lose touch with "human" reality and all that it may involve.
From two weeks ago claimants are "Athletes" and Job advisors are "Coaches"

Re-arranging the furniture in the front room does come to mind!
[quote][p][bold]keen gardener[/bold] wrote: FACT: A number of years ago I overheard a Civil Servant (yes, I was contributing to her over-inflated salary) refer to those attending Job Centres as "PUNTERS". I sincerely hope, as a result of the subsequent conversation we had, that she did not use such an inappropriate reference again. Doubit it but I tried my best! Unfortunately it is a numbers game and there are some who lose touch with "human" reality and all that it may involve.[/p][/quote]From two weeks ago claimants are "Athletes" and Job advisors are "Coaches" Re-arranging the furniture in the front room does come to mind! hobroW
  • Score: 2

4:55pm Tue 4 Mar 14

hobroW says...

I pulled this from the Rights of Man promulgated in 1793 by the french convention. Just so we know where these ideas come from, from a natural expression of the rights of man in society

13. Society is under obligation to provide for the support
of all its members either by procuring work for them or by as-
suring the means of existence to those who are not in condi-
tion to work.

I cannot think of any Western society that has subsequently challenged these ideas however far right the political bosses have been

14. The relief indispensable for those who lack the neces-
ities of life is a debt of those who possess a superfluity ; it be-
longs to the law to determine the manner in which this debt
must be discharged.
I pulled this from the Rights of Man promulgated in 1793 by the french convention. Just so we know where these ideas come from, from a natural expression of the rights of man in society 13. Society is under obligation to provide for the support of all its members either by procuring work for them or by as- suring the means of existence to those who are not in condi- tion to work. I cannot think of any Western society that has subsequently challenged these ideas however far right the political bosses have been 14. The relief indispensable for those who lack the neces- ities of life is a debt of those who possess a superfluity ; it be- longs to the law to determine the manner in which this debt must be discharged. hobroW
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Tue 4 Mar 14

Positive thinker says...

GWB 1983,

I think your over thinking this one
GWB 1983, I think your over thinking this one Positive thinker
  • Score: 0

11:49pm Thu 13 Mar 14

spamfiend says...

Whilst the Job Cnetre mafia are quite harsh, does anyone have the full facts about this one?
Has this person been a habitual late arriver? Has this person been warned over their conduct? There could be a multitude of reasons, and the OP has said they heard of this case. Could it be a question of Chinese whispers?

I have had first hand experience of some of the jobseeker claimants and their attitude to the job centre staff is just as malicious. Give us some real facts and then we can all start pointing the finger.
Whilst the Job Cnetre mafia are quite harsh, does anyone have the full facts about this one? Has this person been a habitual late arriver? Has this person been warned over their conduct? There could be a multitude of reasons, and the OP has said they heard of this case. Could it be a question of Chinese whispers? I have had first hand experience of some of the jobseeker claimants and their attitude to the job centre staff is just as malicious. Give us some real facts and then we can all start pointing the finger. spamfiend
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree