Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Attack On Working Tax Credits: Implentation & Propaganda.

I'm currentlt working in Universal Credit, i'm maybe in a bit of hot water after answering a claimant I was on the pbone to when he asked if I thought it was unfair the fact that he was not getting any money for this month and I agreed and said the issue isn't that it was unfair, as such, but the fact that it is entirely consistent with UC regulations makes it a disgrace. I was overheard apparently and some cunt told a senior manager.

I hate my fucking job, the cunts who run DWP, the wankers who invented Universal Credit and the clype cunt who opened their fucking gob.
 
Fedayn said:
I'm currentlt working in Universal Credit, i'm maybe in a bit of hot water after answering a claimant I was on the pbone to when he asked if I thought it was unfair the fact that he was not getting any money for this month and I agreed and said the issue isn't that it was unfair, as such, but the fact that it is entirely consistent with UC regulations makes it a disgrace. I was overheard apparently and some cunt told a senior manager.

I hate my fucking job, the cunts who run DWP, the wankers who invented Universal Credit and the clype cunt who opened their fucking gob.
Click to expand...
Do the PCS - if involved - support you in any of this?

If i may ask. :)
 
Fedayn said:
If it goes to a formal disciplinary then yes, even if it's just a chat i'll likely take a rep in with me. Though given i'm one of the senior branch reps in the office i'll maybe take myself in if it's informal.
Click to expand...
What's the PCS line on advisers/members enacting sanctions, such as those inflicted on people that, for example, are in hospital having a heart attack?
 
zxspectrum said:
What's the PCS line on advisers/members enacting sanctions, such as those inflicted on people that, for example, are in hospital having a heart attack?
Click to expand...
The pcs says sanctions are bad but if their members tried to do anything about it they'd get sacked, and they can't advise them to do anything that might get them sacked. Pcs won't even spend time finding loopholes or reasons their members could use to refuse sanctions/workfare. Much hand wringing goes on though, so that's something eh?
 
BigTom said:
The pcs says sanctions are bad but if their members tried to do anything about it they'd get sacked, and they can't advise them to do anything that might get them sacked. Pcs won't even spend time finding loopholes or reasons their members could use to refuse sanctions/workfare. Much hand wringing goes on though, so that's something eh?
Click to expand...
Surely the most obvious 'loophole' would be that sanctions are only meant to be used if someone has broken the rules. Now we all know the DWP has turned into the worst and most malicious kind of bureaucracy, but do the rules specifically now claim that someone can be sanctioned, not just for not looking for work/refusing a job (which was always the case), but for being a few minutes late even - never mind the situations we all know have happened.

By exposing this kind of malignant officiousness it can be defeated (touch wood). In other words, doesn't it rely on people doing nothing more than, for example, wring their hands?

And yes I appreciate talk is cheap.
 
Last edited:
zxspectrum said:
Surely the most obvious 'loophole' would be that sanctions are only meant to be used if someone has broken the rules. Now we all know the DWP has turned into the worst and most malicious kind of bureaucracy, but do the rules specifically now claim that someone can be sanctioned, not just for not looking for work/refusing a job (which was always the case), but for being a few minutes late even - never mind the situations we all know have happened.

By exposing this kind of malignant officiousness it can be defeated (touch wood). In other words, doesn't it rely on people doing nothing more than, for example, wring their hands?

And yes I appreciate talk is cheap.
Click to expand...

You can get sanctioned for all manner of things, and yes being a couple of minutes late for your JCP appointment is one of them. List of seriously stupid sanctions here: https://birminghamagainstthecuts.wo...3/a-selection-of-especially-stupid-sanctions/

JCP advisors have some discretion with late arrivals, but PCS will not even suggest that they should be lenient, or give them reasons that may be laid out in the regulations as to what are acceptable reasons for someone being late, instead they will only say that members are required to follow the regs which means they may have to refer someone who is late to be sanctioned.

It needs more than hand-wringing. All PCS do at the moment is say this is terrible, we oppose it, our members don't want to sanction people. They could be finding ways in which their members can use the regs to avoid sanctioning people, to give people as little as possible in the jobseeker's agreement, to stop being being setn on workfare etc, but they don't. They could even go further than that and take industrial action on h&s grounds using examples of people kicking off in jobcentres following sanctions, but they won't, because it's dubious on legal grounds and would probably be illegal and see the union have their funds sequestered. They won't support individual or collective non-compliance action because they say their members will get sacked and they can have their money sequestered.

It's understandable that they won't take illegal or possibly illegal actions, though frustrating of course, unions are so hamstrung now they are increasingly pointless at a collective, class struggle type level, but they could be doing a lot more to advise members how to follow regs in such a way as to avoid sanctions etc.
 
BigTom said:
You can get sanctioned for all manner of things, and yes being a couple of minutes late for your JCP appointment is one of them. List of seriously stupid sanctions here: https://birminghamagainstthecuts.wo...3/a-selection-of-especially-stupid-sanctions/

JCP advisors have some discretion with late arrivals, but PCS will not even suggest that they should be lenient, or give them reasons that may be laid out in the regulations as to what are acceptable reasons for someone being late, instead they will only say that members are required to follow the regs which means they may have to refer someone who is late to be sanctioned.

It needs more than hand-wringing. All PCS do at the moment is say this is terrible, we oppose it, our members don't want to sanction people. They could be finding ways in which their members can use the regs to avoid sanctioning people, to give people as little as possible in the jobseeker's agreement, to stop being being setn on workfare etc, but they don't. They could even go further than that and take industrial action on h&s grounds using examples of people kicking off in jobcentres following sanctions, but they won't, because it's dubious on legal grounds and would probably be illegal and see the union have their funds sequestered. They won't support individual or collective non-compliance action because they say their members will get sacked and they can have their money sequestered.

It's understandable that they won't take illegal or possibly illegal actions, though frustrating of course, unions are so hamstrung now they are increasingly pointless at a collective, class struggle type level, but they could be doing a lot more to advise members how to follow regs in such a way as to avoid sanctions etc.
Click to expand...
But what I'm trying to say is: do the regs allow people to sanction for the reasons we are now seeing. T

The defence the DWP always gives is that this never happens - presumably because the rules don't say sanction people that are in hospital etc. They keep saying that only people that refuse work (the DWP doesn't offer people work either, that's between the claimant and any prospective employer) are punished. This level of denial is a major part of the problem in dealing with this.

And some PCS members, by the law of averages, must be among those enacting such punishments.

As long as this regime persists it remains easy for the likes of IDS to continue spreading the propaganda that not only are sanctions a necessary requirement but that some people welcome them!
 
zxspectrum said:
But what I'm trying to say is: do the regs allow people to sanction for the reasons we are now seeing.
Click to expand...

They don't need genunine reasons.1 thing that happened to me when I was last signing on was the "you missed an appointment" (we didn't tell you about) which I understand is fairly common.

Plus, if you're supposed to be doing 35 hours jobsearch a week, well that's nigh impossible, especially if there's not much about. Still harder to prove. So they just say you aint done enough and that's that. No need for major jiggery pokery, they've got their targets. I'm referring to people doing no paid work at all here, but the same principles will apply to WTC conditionalities I'm sure.
 
One thing that really fucks me off is that UC and other stuff described (and not) here actually make it a DISINCENTIVE to find work.

You're signing on, scraping by but everything is covered.

If you get some work, especially low pay or part time, you go through a whole load of arsery with other benefits to be not much better off, if at all. That was probably always the way but now, on top of that, you risk being put on Universal Clusterfuck if your work dries up (as is often the case). This means you could be made homeless and starving when no money turns up for months. Who in their right mind would want to risk that? Safer staying workless.
 
zxspectrum said:
But what I'm trying to say is: do the regs allow people to sanction for the reasons we are now seeing. T

The defence the DWP always gives is that this never happens - presumably because the rules don't say sanction people that are in hospital etc. They keep saying that only people that refuse work (the DWP doesn't offer people work either, that's between the claimant and any prospective employer) are punished. This level of denial is a major part of the problem in dealing with this.

And some PCS members, by the law of averages, must be among those enacting such punishments.

As long as this regime persists it remains easy for the likes of IDS to continue spreading the propaganda that not only are sanctions a necessary requirement but that some people welcome them!
Click to expand...

Yes and no - the regulations allow people to be sanction for breaking their jobseeker's agreement, which can be more or less anything the advisor wants. They also specifically state stuff like being late or missing appointments, turning down work with less that 1.5hrs travel time and other things, I haven't looked at the regs for a good year or so now so my knowledge isn't 100% up to date. You're allowed to be sick twice a year and stuff like hospital appointments can be fine as long as you notify in advance and change your appointment, but if say there's an emergency and you're rushed to hospital and don't notify the jcp, then the advisor will refer you for a sanction and you'll have to appeal it to get the money back. Advisors don't have much, if any, leeway on this I don't think, but they do on lateness and on referrals to workfare and (to a lesser extent) the work programme. They also have a lot of leeway in terms of what they put into a jobseeker's agreement.

There is some outright fraud going on with sanctions, where managers or advisors change an appointment without telling the claimant and then sanction them for not turning up for the appointment, but mostly it's advisors setting out to use the rules to trip up or trap the claimant by setting increasingly harsh conditions and then waiting for someone to slip up by, eg: applying for 7 jobs one week and 3 the next thinking that 5 a week can be evened out, then getting sanctions for only applying for 3 jobs. Stuff that fits the letter of the law but not the spirit - like the one in that link where the person got a job, which was to start in 2 weeks, didn't look for work in those two weeks and got sanctioned - technically correct, the rules say he's out of work and should be looking for work, but actually ludicrous. Any sensible advisor would use their discretion and not refer someone in that situation.

And yes, some of the worst are PCS members, at one of my local jobcentres, the very worst adviser is, and the PCS rep there has had to defend/support her with problems at work.
 
BigTom said:
You can get sanctioned for all manner of things, and yes being a couple of minutes late for your JCP appointment is one of them. List of seriously stupid sanctions here: https://birminghamagainstthecuts.wo...3/a-selection-of-especially-stupid-sanctions/

JCP advisors have some discretion with late arrivals, but PCS will not even suggest that they should be lenient, or give them reasons that may be laid out in the regulations as to what are acceptable reasons for someone being late, instead they will only say that members are required to follow the regs which means they may have to refer someone who is late to be sanctioned.

It needs more than hand-wringing. All PCS do at the moment is say this is terrible, we oppose it, our members don't want to sanction people. They could be finding ways in which their members can use the regs to avoid sanctioning people, to give people as little as possible in the jobseeker's agreement, to stop being being setn on workfare etc, but they don't. They could even go further than that and take industrial action on h&s grounds using examples of people kicking off in jobcentres following sanctions, but they won't, because it's dubious on legal grounds and would probably be illegal and see the union have their funds sequestered. They won't support individual or collective non-compliance action because they say their members will get sacked and they can have their money sequestered.

It's understandable that they won't take illegal or possibly illegal actions, though frustrating of course, unions are so hamstrung now they are increasingly pointless at a collective, class struggle type level, but they could be doing a lot more to advise members how to follow regs in such a way as to avoid sanctions etc.
Click to expand...

PCS do regularly, we make clear what is correct and have to word it so precisely it's ridiculous. PCS regularly make clear to JobCentre staff what isn't justifiable, it was PCS who exposed the evidence of a sanction target, it was PCS memerbs who put their necks on the line re the evidence, just because you don't see everything doesn't mean it's not happening. There are many in PCS, myself included, who want a more confrontational/robust approach, given however the changes are legal, ie have been legally applied, it's not as easy as we'd all like it to be in challenging it. Personally I think we should boycott sanctions and get a trade dispute called. As it goes I know of PCS reps who have had to be removed fropm offices/ares of offices after near going for arsehole staff who have smiled at sanctioning people. I also know of PCS members who have deliberately ignored DWP procedures to not sanction staff and have been disciplined.
 
TheHoodedClaw said:
Some of the recent rhetoric has been along the lines of "working tax credits allow companies to underpay their staff, and that's not right" Guess where that's going.
Click to expand...

I worked on the Tax Credits Helpline for about six years. It was a clusterfuck from day one. I ahve also said, more than once, that Working Tax Credit is a subsidy to piss poor employers.

Pay people a proper wage, then Tax Credits are not needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

story
Sword attack in Hainault, London. 30 April 2024
2 3 4 5
Replies
129
Views
6K
GarveyLives
G
chilango
Attacking politicians? Unpicking the ethical dimensions.
2 3 4
Replies
106
Views
3K
hitmouse
hitmouse
Jeremiah18.17
Truss & Rees-Mogg prepare for massive attack on workers rights?
Replies
3
Views
549
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
savoloysam
Knife Attack in France. 4 Children critically injured.
Replies
7
Views
870
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
BristolEcho
Dover Migrant Centre Attack (30th October 2022)
Replies
9
Views
914
DaveCinzano
DaveCinzano
Back
Top Bottom