Benefit sanctions evidence

[Lobos 10]

This government sanction people to make the unemployment figures look good they sanction people for the least thing they then take their names off the unemployed list,if as some figures say that up to a million are sanctioned at any one time you can guess the tories will be saying they have got loads of people of the dole...tory strategy to look good hoping people will vote for them,I would hate to be unemployed if the tories get in again there will be no stopping them especially if they get an overall majority.

[loraward 10]

Er......no I didn't.

 

I said that person one no longer needing care helped person two be more productive than person two was when they were off work looking after person one. And that person one had helped create that situation by working hard to get to a level where that became possible.

 

In your world person one is not productive. In mine they are a facilitator for somebody else being productive. In that sense they have value to society, even though they are permanently disabled and will never work again.

 

Not difficult is it. Or maybe it is.

 

But they didn't help them become more productive, they just stopped stopping them from being productive. Not needing care isn't helping someone else be productive.

Your bizarre claim brings us right back to this.

 

A society of 2 million people of which one million people need one to one round the clock care, this would be a none productive society because no one can produce anything. If the one million people in need of care get a little better and only need care for half of each day, it would be a very bizarre argument to now say the people in need of half a days care are actually helping their carers be more productive.

[Cyclone 10]

In your world person one is not productive. In mine they are a facilitator for somebody else being productive. In that sense they have value to society, even though they are permanently disabled and will never work again.

 

Not difficult is it. Or maybe it is.

 

His point is that they actually just stopped being such a drain on productivity by no longer needing as much care. That is not the same as improving productivity by becoming disabled and then being able to care for themselves.

[I1L2T3 10]

His point is that they actually just stopped being such a drain on productivity by no longer needing as much care. That is not the same as improving productivity by becoming disabled and then being able to care for themselves.

 

Actually, it's (potentially for others in the same situation) a bit of both.

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2015 at 23:10 ----------

 

But they didn't help them become more productive, they just stopped stopping them from being productive. Not needing care isn't helping someone else be productive.

Your bizarre claim brings us right back to this.

 

A society of 2 million people of which one million people need one to one round the clock care, this would be a none productive society because no one can produce anything. If the one million people in need of care get a little better and only need care for half of each day, it would be a very bizarre argument to now say the people in need of half a days care are actually helping their carers be more productive.

 

There is no society like that in the world.

 

No longer needing to care for somebody helps the person who no longer has to care for somebody become productive again.

 

I never talked about people becoming more productive, just more productive than they would be if their capability to be productive was compromised. Made this clear already.

[loraward 10]

Actually, it's (potentially for others in the same situation) a bit of both.

 

---------- Post added 25-04-2015 at 23:10 ----------

 

 

There is no society like that in the world.

 

No longer needing to care for somebody helps the person who no longer has to care for somebody become productive again.

 

I never talked about people becoming more productive, just more productive than they would be if their capability to be productive was compromised. Made this clear already.

 

So I was talking about people being productive and you butted in with an argument about no longer being a drain on productivity and called it helping someone become more productive. How bizarre.

[Pilly 10]

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.

 

Miss an appointment at Jobcentre Plus and you are sanctioned.

 

Imagine then, being late for work because the bus was late. Your employer immediately stops your wages for 4 weeks, no grievance procedure, no if's or but's, your employer does not have to pay you for 4 weeks.

 

Then imagine being late for work again, your employer now stops your wages for 13 weeks. One more occasion of lateness would leave you without wages for three years while you continue to work for that employer.

 

If employees were to be treated this way there would be a national crisis. We would see the biggest social uprising in British history.

 

So why are Jobseekers treated this way!

[geared 305]

because half the time they've missed the appointment by just sleeping in, or forgetting that they had it in the first place.

 

How long do you think you'd stay in a job if you constantly arrived 3 hours late, or just didn't turn up as you forgot you were working.

 

Seriously, these people are job seekers right?? So they should be looking for work.

What else have they got to do all day long??

[Happ Hazzard 10]

If you know that being late for an appointment would cost you 4 weeks money, why would you be late?

[El Cid 216]

If you know that being late for an appointment would cost you 4 weeks money, why would you be late?

 

Missing an appointment would cost them four weeks money, you would not be fined that much for committing a crime, is that how draconian it should be?

[Happ Hazzard 10]

Missing an appointment would cost them four weeks money, you would not be fined that much for committing a crime, is that how draconian it should be?

It's not a fine, it's not being given free money that comes with conditions attached. If someone offered me several hundred pounds for being somewhere at a designated time on a designated day, and I was relying on this money to be able to survive, I would make absolutely sure I was there at the right time. Why would anyone in that situation do otherwise?

[geared 305]

The only decent excuse is either a medical emergency or if they actually have a job interview to go to.

[Pilly57 10]

because half the time they've missed the appointment by just sleeping in, or forgetting that they had it in the first place.

 

Any evidence for that?