darkmorgado wrote:He's been waiting over three years for an explanation. |
Job Seeker's Allowance Query • Page 2
-
-
pacrifice 4,360 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoThanx for the info everyone. -
pacrifice 4,360 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoSo after 6 months, I now have to re-apply for JSA but thing is, now that it's been 6 months of unemployment, I've been reading that they'll force me to work in a supermarket or something in order to continue receiving the JSA.
Can they really hold that to ransom? I'm not keen on working 30 hours a week, for less than minimum wage (JSA is £70 a week) in an area where it's not the type of work I've been looking for. -
Lukus 21,195 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 13 years agoGo self employed. New Enterprise Allowance. -
They're holding you to ransom by forcing you to go out to work in a supermarket?
Are you planted by teh Daily Mail to sell their papers? -
pacrifice 4,360 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 14 years agoC'mon now, don't affiliate me with that rag.
Maybe "Ransom" isn't the right word but you get the idea.. -
Ashleyfiddes 980 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 8 years agowhen i was out of work about 4 years ago for 6 weeks, i went to sign on and they had told me i had not paid any national insurance, my surname was changed when i was three and they have my original surname on the system but i was paying NI on my new surname. Apparently i couldn't claim any job seekers so lived off a CC for the 6 weeks
I know i need to sort it out before i retire but i cant be bothered to speak to the wankers who work in the government dealing with this crap -
@graysonavich £70 a week is not fair remuneration for 30 hours work. I know who is getting the best deal and it is neither the taxpayer or the unemployed person I can tell you that. -
neilka 21,201 posts
Seen 23 minutes ago
Registered 13 years agoIs it the Jews? -
£70 for 3 days a week doesn't sound too far off the minimum wage -
Yeah, it is pretty scummy. If people were actually offered a job, fine. But they're not: they're made to work somewhere for less pay than if they had a job there, and then society still calls them a bunch of scumbags. -
graysonavich wrote:
If £70 is near £185, then yeah, not far off that legally mandated minimum.
£70 for 3 days a week doesn't sound too far off the minimum wage -
FOR 3 FUCKING DAYS -
And?
30 hours a week is 30 hours a week is 30 hours a week, at less than minimum wage.
It's not helping anyone find a job other than a job in a supermarket. So why aren't they given a JOB, if the company has the space and the funds? Have an interview, a trial period, fine. But why this? -
spamdangled 31,575 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoI think grayson is assuming you mean £70 a day, not £70 a week. -
Ashleyfiddes 980 posts
Seen 5 months ago
Registered 8 years agothough if you think about it £70 a week for 6 months without working, if you add them all up pretty sure your getting quite a bit an hour (not sure if you can work it like that but heyho)
Edited by Ashleyfiddes at 15:32:21 09-08-2013 -
Lukus 21,195 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 13 years agoI've taken shits that have cost more than £70. -
It's amazing what people will buy on eBay.
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
