Universal Job Match at http://jobseekers.direct.gov.uk

Buellguy

MissSarah1972 wrote: »

So how are you going to prove you have applied to them then if they are by email?

Isn't the point of the site that you apply via the site?

Just like say Totaljobs - if ti says apply by email only to so and so .com I copy the advert and the link and email it to myself so I know what the job was if I get an email back or a call etc. With nothing being stored on your acct there on this new site how are you going to prove you have applied.

I do not see what they are trying to achieve by having a new site like this.

I do the same.
The new site, who knows, I prefered the old one, was easier (I think) to search and narrow searches down

old-muggins-here

whereisthemoney wrote: »

I would like to know where you think they'd have the money or resources to do this?
Have you ever been into the job centre? They can't afford proper paper or even computers manufactured past 2003

I was told they have money from the government to help 18-25 year olds back into work.. so not sure where the money is coming from.

weeta_bix

whereisthemoney wrote: »

I would like to know where you think they'd have the money or resources to do this?
Have you ever been into the job centre? They can't afford proper paper or even computers manufactured past 2003

Who'd have thought they had so much money to throw at A4E or ATOS? This system will probably replace those organisations, so I wouldn't like to speculate what their IT budget is. I don't think it is all likely, but it would be naive to say that they cannot.

This is interesting from PCS
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/department_for_work_and_pensions_group/dwp-news.cfm/id/541F146C-1297-4285-A5011259B0E337B9

Not Compulsory

It is not compulsory for jobseekers to use UJM though a direction to do so could be applied if an adviser deemed it to be appropriate. While DWP can not specify how claimants prove they are actively seeking work, as all vacancies registered with DWP will be on UJM, DWP would be likely to expect jobseekers to register in order to apply for those jobs.

old-muggins-here

weeta_bix wrote: »

Who'd have thought they had so much money to throw at A4E or ATOS? This system will probably replace those organisations, so I wouldn't like to speculate what their IT budget is. I don't think it is all likely, but it would be naive to say that they cannot.

This is interesting from PCS
.pcs.org.uk/en/department_for_work_and_pensions_group/dwp-news.cfm/id/541F146C-1297-4285-A5011259B0E337B9

hope I'm reading this wrong..

from the link you provided -

"Impact on Job Centre staffing
DWP Management has confirmed to PCS that there will be no change to any earned intervention time (e.g. FJR’s) as a result of the introduction of UJM. Management have confirmed that any advisor time saved by the introduction of UJM will not be used to cut interview times or to cut jobs. Instead management have confirmed that any time saved will be reinvested into activities that enable advisors to focus more on enabling jobseekers to find work."

although....

.pcs.org.uk/en/department_for_work_and_pensions_group/dwp-news.cfm/id/E95427CA-3FA5-4176-B28649BB95420C8C

Am I missing something here or reading something wrong?

john539

weeta_bix wrote: »

Who'd have thought they had so much money to throw at A4E or ATOS? This system will probably replace those organisations, so I wouldn't like to speculate what their IT budget is. I don't think it is all likely, but it would be naive to say that they cannot.

This is interesting from PCS
http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/department_for_work_and_pensions_group/dwp-news.cfm/id/541F146C-1297-4285-A5011259B0E337B9

Interesting.

Like this bit:

Conclusion
UJM is one of the first major attempts by DWP to provide its services online. There is likely to be management pressure to hit the target of 80% of jobseekers using the system by August 2013. Any reports of excessive pressure on advisors to hit this target, or any other issues concerning the implementation of UJM, should initially be raised with management locally and escalated as appropriate to OSNTUS and national level.

old-muggins-here

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: oohh..

ttp://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/

So.. most complex databse in history?.... this is going to FAIL! more complex than the millions if not billions of people using facebook? not to mention the images, video's etc that are shared :rotfl:

I love this bit

It’s hardly a surprise that the website is such a mess. The new service was built by Monster Jobs – an international online recruitment firm. The company already has an extensive online jobmatching website. They were hardly likely to develop a better one for the DWP.

Monster Jobs must have been laughing all the way to the bank as the DWP paid them huge some of tax payer’s cash to effectively knobble any competition to their business from the Jobcentre.

1940sGal

weeta_bix wrote: »

It wouldn't be legal, it would be very hacky and I don't want to make you paranoid, but yes they could. I won't explain how as it not ethical. I'm not saying it is easy, or obvious, but any website can do this if they really wanted to.

The easier way to avoid this happening would be to have a browser that is only used for Universal Job Match and making sure the cookies etc are cleared very regularly. Or better yet, not sign up in the first place.

So in a company not known for their computer hacking, and a government run company at that, they're not going to be hacking anyone's computer just to check their internet browsing history anytime soon, are they? :cool:

Buellguy

1940sGal wrote: »

So in a company not known for their computer hacking, and a government run company at that, they're not going to be hacking anyone's computer just to check their internet browsing history anytime soon, are they? :cool:

Exactly, well said, no they aren't (missed you were being sarcastic) can't afford the time at the end of the day, it'll probably come down to 'are you registered, if not, why not, we suggest you are, if anyone at that point is that STUPID not to register then easy, you don't get any money'

1940sGal

Buellguy wrote: »

Exactly, well said, no they aren't (missed you were being sarcastic) can't afford the time at the end of the day, it'll probably come down to 'are you registered, if not, why not, we suggest you are, if anyone at that point is that STUPID not to register then easy, you don't get any money'

To be fair, I don't think it's a case of someone being stupid not to register, I can see why people would object to it.

I think if they force anyone in to registering and giving them their details it will be those who they suspect aren't doing enough in their job searches.

There's no way in hell they have the man power to check the usage of every single jobseeker.

old-muggins-here

1940sGal wrote: »

To be fair, I don't think it's a case of someone being stupid not to register, I can see why people would object to it.

I think if they force anyone in to registering and giving them their details it will be those who they suspect aren't doing enough in their job searches.

There's no way in hell they have the man power to check the usage of every single jobseeker.

They probably won't check every jobseeker granted.. but what's to stop them doing random spot checks at will?

this link says a lot

ttp://pikasnaughtycorner.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/universal-jobmatch-day-one.html

Either way I have concerns, concerns which haven't been discussed with me in any detail. (thank god I'm starting a new job next week).

but if I weren't I'd exercise my full right to ask questions towards the security of the database of which my personal details will be included. and as in the link above, there's security concerns over the DPA. if they force people to register (as it would appear, many today so far have been told to sign up) under the privacy terms of the site alone "do not sing up if you do not want personal information to be passed on to third parties" basically...