Wednesday, 28 August 2013
No public money for the shirkers....
PRESS RELEASE States of Jersey Ministry for the Care of the Public Purse
27 August 2013
New proposals for States’ Members sanctions
A new system of sanctions for States Members who fail to look for work while claiming States salaries has been proposed by the Minister for the Care of the Public Purse (CPP).
The changes complement the increased help to find useful employment available through the ballot box and the significant investment made by the people to help locally elected politicians into creative work
The new regulations will:
• strengthen the public’s ability to reduce or remove States payments for those Members who repeatedly fail to look for work, or fail to fully respond to the voters’ needs or initiatives proposed by the paying public. They provide a new sanction to reduce the ability of States Members to freeload or to shirk from available work without good reason.
The Minister for the Care of the Public Purse said that the vast majority of Members claiming salaries would be unaffected by the changes, which are designed to provide a strong deterrent to the minority who do not do enough work.
Under the new proposals, any salary or expenses claimed by a Member as actively seeking to represent his or her electorate but failing to undertake meaningful representative activities will be issued with a written warning which will remain in force for a minimum of one year. Each further breach following that first warning will result in increasing financial penalties and the eventual loss of all salaries or expenses until the individual proves that they are genuinely looking for work. Any Member who leaves a voter unrepresented without a good reason will not be able to claim their salary or expenses component for 13 weeks.
The Minister said: “There is an enormous amount of support available to help elected States Members increase their chances of useful employment, whether that is through training, seeking voter assistance, at the Department’s Scrutiny Panels or through direct engagement with local Parishioners in their constituencies.
“Staying dormant and relying on the Media to call is not a lifestyle choice. The new regulations will send a clear message to the few who may be tempted to think it is. We will do everything we can to help them find work, but that failing to uphold their end of the bargain will result in a cut to their salary and expenses besides a likely final expulsion through the ballot box”.
“The Department will not be penalising anyone who genuinely cannot find useful work, is exempt from doing so or has a good reason for leaving a ministry, such as being posted overseas temporarily on a jolly. Any Member who is thinking of leaving their post and may consequently need to claim the “Ogley Defence” should speak with our advisers about their options before making a decision to give up their duties.”
The Minister said that States pay is an in-work benefit, designed to help Members in times of need and to encourage self-sufficiency. “The recent rises in unemployment among the general population have thrown into even sharper focus the need for increased penalties for all States Members who do not seek-out work. The intention of these changes is to protect public funds so that they can be properly targeted to people who are genuinely deserving of reward and recognition.”
The new sanctions against States Members shirking employment are provided by regulations that were lodged with the States today. They are due to be debated on 8 October 2013.
-ends-
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Reading the Press Release that announced the changes, entitled “New proposals for jobseeker sanctions” dated 27.08.2013, there is a worrying threat to employees that may have gone unnoticed.
ReplyDeleteThe Press statement says:
“Anyone who leaves a job without a good reason will not be able to claim their Income Support adult component for 13 weeks.”
One “good reason” for leaving is specifically stated as “being made redundant”, but otherwise provides no further definition.
Someone claiming constructive unfair dismissal against an employer might be classified as an insufficient good reason for leaving. This arises when an employee treats the employer’s conduct towards her as breach of the contract of employment warranting her to cease work and treat the contract as repudiated by the employer.
Evidentially this is very hard for an employee to prove in an employment Tribunal. Given that cases can take a year to reach a Hearing, the employees may find themselves being denied benefit for the 13 weeks and subsequently, many months later, winning at the Tribunal. Will Social Security make a refund of the benefit denied?
The Press Statement makes this stark warning to employees:
“Anyone who is thinking of leaving their job and may consequently need to claim benefit should speak with our advisers about their options before making a decision to give up work.”
Overall these new regulations are designed to indirectly reinforce labour discipline in the workplace.
This may be a wake up for some employees; for others it may cower them further.
You omitted the amendment that will require members to bring proof to each States sitting, properly signed, countersigned and witnessed by a person of good standing, that they actually exist.
ReplyDelete1) You may recall comments I made two months ago about being pressured to sign up for Advance Plus:
ReplyDeletehttp://sstagjsy.blogspot.com/2013/07/jersey-registration-card-day-one-and.html#comment-form
The implications for both jobseekers and unemployed if P. 101/2013 is adopted next month are extremely serious and could well result in claimants being unable to pay their rent once a third breach of a warning is reached, because the housing component would stop for 6 weeks, as would all other components, as would the right to claim a 'Special Payment'. In such cases of overwhelming need, the claimant's only hope to avoid eviction and possible homelessness would be a special payment made by the Minister at his discretion, in "exceptional circumstances". In my opinion, these changes would result in many payments that are currently made in accordance with legislation being instead decided at the discretion of the Minister- an elected politician- which is an extremely unhealthy development, especially close to an election.
2) The first thing I noticed is that although the report accompanying the proposition makes no mention of it (nor do any of the media interviews or Press releases), the proposed new wording of Regulation 4 includes a paragraph that has the effect of legalising the Department's "voluntary" work for benefits schemes (Advance Plus etc) and making the claimant's refusal to participate in such a scheme without reasonable excuse grounds for being regarded as not "taking all reasonable steps to obtain remunerative work that is suitable work" (Reg 4(1)(c)), which would then trigger a warning notice or breach of warning. The relevant paragraph that legalises these work for benefits schemes is here:
ReplyDeleteRegulation 4
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the steps include-
(b) attending any work experience placement that may assist the person in obtaining remunerative work that is suitable work, unless the person has a reasonable excuse for not so doing and, when attending the work experience placement, undertaking it to the best of the person's ability.
It is hidden away on page 21 of 28 below:
http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/AssemblyPropositions/2013/P.101-2013.pdf
Not only would this paragraph effectively force a claimant to accept any offer of unpaid work that a member of the Department made to him/her, but it would the employer in a very powerful position over the claimant for as long as the unpaid employment lasted. For example, I know of a current claimant who, due to pressure from Social Security staff, has "volunteered" for 4 separate spells of unpaid work over the past year- 3 of these spells with the same employer- because the claimant was worried about being classed as not actively seeking work. None of these short spells of work resulted in an offer of paid employment being offered, although the employer pressured the claimant to increase their number of unpaid working days from 2 days to 3 days. Under the new sanctions regime, pressure from an employer in this way would be almost impossible to resist, because of the worry that the employer would make adverse comments to Social Security about the claimant's motivation.
3) One more thing- in reply to the comments of Anonymous above, relating to the new sanctions on employees leaving their jobs "without good reason", don't forget that part of the July 2011 amendments introduced by Gorst (P. 107/2011) already prevent such persons being able to claim Income Support for 13 weeks after leaving employment. If such a person is not receiving IS at the time of leaving their employment, they now have to wait 13 weeks before payments begin. If such a person is receiving IS at the time of leaving their employment, their claim continues to be based on their income before the employment ceased, for 13 weeks. The new proposals are yet a FURTHER squeeze on employees who are not happy in their employment, particularly if they have less than 6 months employment, in which case they can't rely on an unfair dismissal claim either.
ReplyDelete