We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
jobseekers / employers alike- this official 'bung' may tip the balance!
Comments
-
unemployedJCP wrote: »They used to check up on people but don’t anymore - so you could probably lie every 2 weeks and get away with it.
with this issue there isnt really any way of proving you are doing jobsearch and there is no way of proving you arent doing jobsearch. why? because how can you prove you have sent off applications? how can they prove you havent sent off applications. the only time an application can be proven is when it is a job found through the jobcentre. i have an advisor i see once a month and i have to take my jobsearch records to show them as proof. what a joke that is because i could easily just make it all up if i wasnt doing anything.0 -
That's the unfortunate thing that many employers don't realise or understand, which Vader123 has found, that jobs advertised through JC+ have an alternate purpose, which is to test people's eligibility for benefit, which is not quite the same as finding suitable people who want to do those jobs.unemployedJCP wrote: »When you sign on or have a New Deal appointment they will do a job search for the client. It is down to the advisers discretion whether or not to submit the jobseeker to jobs. Some ask for the jobseekers opinion. The adviser can go with whether the person is interested or not, or submit the jobseeker to the job against their will. When submitted to a job it is a Jobseekers Direction - failure to comply is a variable sanction (up to 6 months - typically 6 months is given but maybe reduced on appeal).
I had to sign on at one point for a couple of months and I refused one vacancy because the advert stated I needed professional qualifications (essential not desirable) I didn’t have. I felt it was silly to apply for it as I had no chance of getting an interview. I had a lot of trouble sorting this out as i was assumed to just apply for it anyway.
Jobseekers will be aware that some staff members will submit you to unrealistic job vacancies. The problem is, they don’t always let you view the screen so when they print out the sheet you are submitted for it. I weren’t told about the professional qualification and I found out when I got home (ready to apply for it). I contacted them in all honesty letting them know of the mistake where I was told not to worry about it. When I next signed on, I explained it to the woman as she asked how I got on, also mentioning about the phone call with her colleague. She responded with you should have applied for it but don’t worry about it. Later to find out I was submitted for a 6 month sanction. I eventually appealed successfully but managed to get a job before it would have taken effect anyway.
This is a headache for employers.
The predicament you experienced is why many claimants may apply for unsuitable jobs to keep advisors happy & not cause themselves problems.
As you say this is a headache for employers receiving unsuitable applications.0 -
Well when I signed on for that period I actually decided to do the following:donnajunkie wrote: »with this issue there isnt really any way of proving you are doing jobsearch and there is no way of proving you arent doing jobsearch. why? because how can you prove you have sent off applications? how can they prove you havent sent off applications. the only time an application can be proven is when it is a job found through the jobcentre. i have an advisor i see once a month and i have to take my jobsearch records to show them as proof. what a joke that is because i could easily just make it all up if i wasnt doing anything.
a) If it was in computer format save the covering letter and CV or application form for future reference (I think everyone does that anyway)
b) If it was sent via email make sure I kept a copy in Sent Items
c) Take a photo of every envelope I sent (although it didnt prove I sent it, it showed the address and a postage stamp(s) - it would be silly to buy a stamp for each job application if you didn't want to apply - if it was a big pack get proof of posting at Post Office w/receipt) however OTT this sounds I was warned about how picky JCP can be and with a digital camera it doesn't really cost anything just a little hard drive space.
Then If they ever had a problem I could have some evidence to support my case. In future (if a case was sent to a Decision Maker) I would Bcc all further email applications to JCP CEO, JCP District Manager, JCP Manager, and to an NDPA if I had claimed that long (I assume they have an email). That would sure annoy them especially the Management.
I also see where donna is coming from. It is an age old problem. Royal Mail isn't 100% reliable but over time it has become an excuse to say "lost in the post" and I dont doubt that a lot of claimants are also using that old chestnut. Royal Mail is still up to a certain level of reliability - its rare for post to get lost in any integer percentage, however, the biggest problem is post arriving late (or stolen).
This said an increasingly amount of employers dont ever write back to confirm receipt (even if you requested it) or write to you when you are not successful - those who do, normally do it a few months later (whats the point?!) I understand this takes some time but with mail merge (as is done anyway) it shouldnt need to take too long? Big employers with loads of vacancies (should) have dedicated HR team to handle demand.
As of the joblogs... yeah anyone can make them up. The problem is all jobseekers are called "dole scroungers" by society and you get paid the same amount regardless if you try or dont try. Some people give the rest a bad name. Government constantly keep saying about being tougher on the unemployed making it harder to claim whereas the '95 Act (in force from 1996) without any amendments or regulations made it possible to end claims for those who dont seek employment. 13 years later they are still getting away with it!0 -
Jobcentre (Plus) is a place for sorting out benefit claims (apart from those handled by Councils and HMRC etc.) and will always be. They have tried to make it an employment agency and it completely fails.That's the unfortunate thing that many employers don't realise or understand, which Vader123 has found, that jobs advertised through JC+ have an alternate purpose, which is to test people's eligibility for benefit, which is not quite the same as finding suitable people who want to do those jobs.
The predicament you experienced is why many claimants may apply for unsuitable jobs to keep advisors happy & not cause themselves problems.
As you say this is a headache for employers receiving unsuitable applications.
Lets face it, their active pool of clients/customers/claimants are claiming because they are entitled (or seen to be entitled). An employment agency on the other hand can be picky to whom they want to register or for those who register whom they are interested in the most.
Jobcentre Plus obviously then has a wide client range from those who have never worked straight out of college/school to professionals etc. An real employment agency will match peoples skills to a job they are to be PAID for filling. Jobcentre Plus is FREE to employers and dont have a specialist job market.
An real employment agency typically is a for profit business (majority anyway) targets need to be met to generate profit. Jobcentre Plus only have targets of reducing unemployment count (whether its finding people jobs, sticking them on New Deal (so are officially "In Training" and not unemployed) or sanctioning them/preventing people claiming) - staff generally are not skilled or designated to match people into jobs, they are simply fulfilling a job where they (should) treat everyone identical.
An employment agency can choose who they work with while Jobcentre Plus has to accept any job vacancies thrown at them which is really easy to submit to. An agency makes sure the job ad is written like a advertisement, Jobcentre Plus listed jobs typically are boring to read and very vague, its hard to be enthusiastic about the majority of them.
An employment agency matches peoples skills to a job which needs filling; Jobcentre Plus just submits clients to any job in a category as on their Jobseeker Agreement indiscriminatively where the customer (claimant) has to apply to avoid being sanctioned or their claim terminated. This means via Jobcentre people can be bullied into unsuitable jobs and thus dont last long whereas with employment agencies you are free to choose whether you are able to commit yourself to the term it is advertised for.
Jobcentre Plus doesn't compete with and isn't a competitor for other agencies; Jobcentre Plus LMS system is a spamming ground (or was) for agency jobs, work trials (so is not a job) and even scammers who setup vacancies to claim money from Government before dismissing such employees (over 12 unemployed persons taken on the employer is giving the full £1000 upfront per an employee).
My personal take from my little experience I had with them is to scrap the "customer" nonsense and go back to strictly a benefit administration service where people can choose newspapers and other websites for job search.0 -
unemployedJCP wrote: »Well when I signed on for that period I actually decided to do the following:
a) If it was in computer format save the covering letter and CV or application form for future reference (I think everyone does that anyway)
b) If it was sent via email make sure I kept a copy in Sent Items
c) Take a photo of every envelope I sent (although it didnt prove I sent it, it showed the address and a postage stamp(s) - it would be silly to buy a stamp for each job application if you didn't want to apply - if it was a big pack get proof of posting at Post Office w/receipt) however OTT this sounds I was warned about how picky JCP can be and with a digital camera it doesn't really cost anything just a little hard drive space.
Then If they ever had a problem I could have some evidence to support my case. In future (if a case was sent to a Decision Maker) I would Bcc all further email applications to JCP CEO, JCP District Manager, JCP Manager, and to an NDPA if I had claimed that long (I assume they have an email). That would sure annoy them especially the Management.
I also see where donna is coming from. It is an age old problem. Royal Mail isn't 100% reliable but over time it has become an excuse to say "lost in the post" and I dont doubt that a lot of claimants are also using that old chestnut. Royal Mail is still up to a certain level of reliability - its rare for post to get lost in any integer percentage, however, the biggest problem is post arriving late (or stolen).
This said an increasingly amount of employers dont ever write back to confirm receipt (even if you requested it) or write to you when you are not successful - those who do, normally do it a few months later (whats the point?!) I understand this takes some time but with mail merge (as is done anyway) it shouldnt need to take too long? Big employers with loads of vacancies (should) have dedicated HR team to handle demand.
As of the joblogs... yeah anyone can make them up. The problem is all jobseekers are called "dole scroungers" by society and you get paid the same amount regardless if you try or dont try. Some people give the rest a bad name. Government constantly keep saying about being tougher on the unemployed making it harder to claim whereas the '95 Act (in force from 1996) without any amendments or regulations made it possible to end claims for those who dont seek employment. 13 years later they are still getting away with it!
yeah, people could do those 3 things. its alot more work for yourself though. if i apply for a jobcentre vacancy i always hope it can be applied for via email. that way if they dispute whether i applied for it i can just say ok lets log into my email account and i will show you.
when i mentioned not being able to prove you have sent an application i wasnt really thinking about it getting lost in the post. i meant unless you send via registered delivery you cant prove you actually applied. of course we could follow your suggestions but the jobcentre dont as yet require people to do those 3 things.
the bad ones do give the rest a bad name. you can feel like they have a guilty until proven innocent attitude at the jobcentre.
its all well and good the idea of giving the layabouts a hard time. if you look at the whole picture i do think why bother. well why bother at the moment. why do i think this? well it seems silly to force someone into a job they dont want when there are many people who would love to get that job. so you end up with people in work that dont want to be and people out of work that dont want to be. so i dont see the point in getting particularly tough until everyone who wants a job has one. anyway all this getting tough talk seems to me like being unemployed is a crime. the jobcentre is supposed to be there to help not to punish. you could go out and mug someone and get softer treatment from a judge than what an unemployed person gets from the jobcentre.0 -
It is a crime lol...donnajunkie wrote: »yeah, people could do those 3 things. its alot more work for yourself though. if i apply for a jobcentre vacancy i always hope it can be applied for via email. that way if they dispute whether i applied for it i can just say ok lets log into my email account and i will show you.
when i mentioned not being able to prove you have sent an application i wasnt really thinking about it getting lost in the post. i meant unless you send via registered delivery you cant prove you actually applied. of course we could follow your suggestions but the jobcentre dont as yet require people to do those 3 things.
the bad ones do give the rest a bad name. you can feel like they have a guilty until proven innocent attitude at the jobcentre.
its all well and good the idea of giving the layabouts a hard time. if you look at the whole picture i do think why bother. well why bother at the moment. why do i think this? well it seems silly to force someone into a job they dont want when there are many people who would love to get that job. so you end up with people in work that dont want to be and people out of work that dont want to be. so i dont see the point in getting particularly tough until everyone who wants a job has one. anyway all this getting tough talk seems to me like being unemployed is a crime. the jobcentre is supposed to be there to help not to punish. you could go out and mug someone and get softer treatment from a judge than what an unemployed person gets from the jobcentre.
Government introducing workfare... which is exempt from human rights as will be a civil duty. I hear you would have to be unemployed for 2 years before being forced to work for jobseekers so most people will get away with it. I can't see it long before they change it to after 6 months. (Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood this as doesn't apply to my situation)
I wouldn't worry about registered post or doing all my steps I have done. I have had a couple of small periods of unemployment and the previous one I had (before the last) nothing but problems, hence the extremes I went to.
A lot of email jobs I have applied for have gotten an automated response which proves it was received along with the Sent Items to show it has been sent.
Conservatives who are deemed to win the GE this year are set to make things worse (all they do is promise on being tougher than Labour what a naff policy lol).0 -
unemployedJCP wrote: »[...]Jobcentre Plus doesn't compete with and isn't a competitor for other agencies; Jobcentre Plus LMS system is a spamming ground (or was) for agency jobs, work trials (so is not a job) and even scammers who setup vacancies to claim money from Government before dismissing such employees (over 12 unemployed persons taken on the employer is giving the full £1000 upfront per an employee).
My personal take from my little experience I had with them is to scrap the "customer" nonsense and go back to strictly a benefit administration service where people can choose newspapers and other websites for job search.
Just to clarify, LMS is still a spamming ground for agency jobs but not so for work trails or the recruitment subsidy (£1000 is not paid upfront). There are more checks in place now to prevent abuse and not every employer is eligible for work trails or the rec. sub.
I agree with your last paragraph in that job searches should facilitate internet searches and I'm seeing this starting to happen with some JCP staff but not all as you can't really check on the details of that session unlike a LMS jobsearch session.0 -
I apologise. I researched on DWP or JCP website it mentioned for under 12 people (I think) its £500 for employing someone, paid within 15 working days, and £500 after 26 weeks. Job must be expected to last 26 weeks (but doesnt have to) and must be at least 16 hours a week on average. Over 12 you contact them for a custom solution and what I read made it seem like employers can get £1000 paid upfront (probably within 15 working days too).Just to clarify, LMS is still a spamming ground for agency jobs but not so for work trails or the recruitment subsidy (£1000 is not paid upfront). There are more checks in place now to prevent abuse and not every employer is eligible for work trails or the rec. sub.
I agree with your last paragraph in that job searches should facilitate internet searches and I'm seeing this starting to happen with some JCP staff but not all as you can't really check on the details of that session unlike a LMS jobsearch session.0 -
unemployedJCP wrote: »It is a crime lol...
Government introducing workfare... which is exempt from human rights as will be a civil duty. I hear you would have to be unemployed for 2 years before being forced to work for jobseekers so most people will get away with it. I can't see it long before they change it to after 6 months. (Feel free to correct me if I misunderstood this as doesn't apply to my situation)
I wouldn't worry about registered post or doing all my steps I have done. I have had a couple of small periods of unemployment and the previous one I had (before the last) nothing but problems, hence the extremes I went to.
A lot of email jobs I have applied for have gotten an automated response which proves it was received along with the Sent Items to show it has been sent.
Conservatives who are deemed to win the GE this year are set to make things worse (all they do is promise on being tougher than Labour what a naff policy lol).
as far as working for your benefit goes it depends what area you are in and your age. as it still is in some areas the old new deal is what people are usually refered to after 18 months out of work. on this they spend either 13 weeks or 26 weeks on a course were they spend one day a week in a centre doing jobsearch etc and 4 days per week doing a work placement were they work for their benefit. they get an extra £15 per week plus travel costs minus the first £4. in some areas flexible new deal is in effect. i think it is in areas with high unemployment. with this you get refered to an advisor at the jobcentre who you have to see once a month. this happens after 6 months out of work. when you get to the 12 month mark you get sent on a course that lasts 12 months. i dont know much about this yet but what i do know is you have to spend at least 4 weeks doing a work placement. during the rest of the time you go to a centre on a part time basis. your advisor at the centre will decide how often you have to be there. unlike the old new deal you still sign on while you are on this. whether you still get an allowance on top of your benefit and whether you still get help with travel i dont know. there was talk that if you still didnt get a job after this that you would go on permanent community work but i dont know if they have put this in place or not.
when the tories get in i dont think we can be sure of anything they say they plan to do at the moment. they could do anything. they could create something worse, they could keep things as they are or they could scrap it altogether to help pay for tax cuts.0 -
As a jobhunter, anything that tips the balance would be welcome..
It is up to the employer whether any candidate (using this incentive or not) is suitable for the job, to start with..
btw, they dont get paid just to see people, a formal job offer needs to have been made, and confirmed by the jobcentre etc..
Sp, if there's any firm in the Brighton/Hove area, wanting full time experienced accounts staff, please get in touch!
Long time away from MSE, been dealing real life stuff..
Sometimes seen lurking on the compers forum :-)0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards