Universal Jobmatch - non mandatory

john539

SarEl wrote: »

Please - whilst quoting the law which you have now been asked to quote several times - do also point to where I said that jobseekers have to do what they are told withour question.

The OP said that an instruction to use UJM by your advisor could not be enforced because such an instruction was unenforceable because it would be an illegal instruction. That is not true. I said that if you refused to carry out the lawful and reasonable instructions of your advisor you could expect to be sanctioned. On what basis exactly would be it be incorrect to say that you could expect to be sanctioned.

And if you had been around here more than two minutes you would know exactly what kind of barrister I am.

You and jobseekinghelp have both supported the view that the law does not permit advisors to tell people they must use UJM in their jobsearch, and that to do so is illegal. I am asking you yet again - WHICH LAW DOES THIS BREAK?

I will not be the one down at the jobcentre on Monday qoting utter rubbish off an intenet site and risking my benefit payments - don't you think that the unemployed people here deserve to know which law you are telling them exists to support your argument?

Calm down, you're getting the wrong end of the stick.

I commented on your post & I haven't agreed with the original post.
Sorry I didn't realise you were a "barrister", you did say you were a "Lawyer"
You've already said you're not a benefits advisor.

You did say, jobseekers need to do what they're told.

UJM is not mandatory & the final decision on any referral is with a Decision Maker.

Jc Advisors can & will say what they want.

DecentLivingWage

SarEl wrote: »

Please - whilst quoting the law which you have now been asked to quote several times - do also point to where I said that jobseekers have to do what they are told withour question.

The OP said that an instruction to use UJM by your advisor could not be enforced because such an instruction was unenforceable because it would be an illegal instruction. That is not true. I said that if you refused to carry out the lawful and reasonable instructions of your advisor you could expect to be sanctioned. On what basis exactly would be it be incorrect to say that you could expect to be sanctioned.

And if you had been around here more than two minutes you would know exactly what kind of barrister I am.



You and jobseekinghelp have both supported the view that the law does not permit advisors to tell people they must use UJM in their jobsearch, and that to do so is illegal. I am asking you yet again - WHICH LAW DOES THIS BREAK?

I will not be the one down at the jobcentre on Monday qoting utter rubbish off an intenet site and risking my benefit payments - don't you think that the unemployed people here deserve to know which law you are telling them exists to support your argument?

Yes, thanks, they do deserve that - clarification is vital ! I know job hunters who will go hungry for 5 days if they get their forms wrong! Or worse! They were already frightened before, now they are nervous and afraid of the UJM site (for now they are leaving the access box unticked.)

SarEl

john539 wrote: »

You did say, jobseekers need to do what they're told.
.

You really do appear to have some difficulty reading the English language, don't you? I was not not aware that I needed to inform you of my professional background before posting - I note that although I have asked, neither you nor jobseeking help have explained the basis on which you are qualified to advise people here on refusing to do as a Jobcentre advisor instructs in relation to job search methods. And by the way - we usually use the word barrister without inverted commas. But you are welcome to use inverted commas or not around your own professional status. Just let us know what it is so that we can all judge the weight of your assertions.

Since you now claim that you were only commenting on my post, then (a) you have not done so accurately and (b) if you are not supporting the view of the OP, can you clarify that you are disassociating yourself from any suggestion that jobseekers should refuse to use the UJM?

I am asking you once again - Where exactly did I say that jobseekers need to do as they are told? Your original allegation also added "without question" - where did I say that? Come on, it is less than 14 lines of text - it can't be that hard to find the bit where I said it can it?

You will find, if you actually read what I posted - and it really is only 14 lines so it isn't that hard to do - that I did not comment at all on whether the UJM is mandatory or not because that is an irrelevancy. Contrary to jobseeking helps assertion, it does not require a change of law, and refusing to use a legitimate job search method when told to do so by an advisor should, quite definitely means that you should expect to be sanctioned. On what possible reasonable grounds could someone out of work suggest that using a site that has jobs advertised on it is unreasonable? Will you be putting that particular argument to your advisor when and if you are asked to use the site for your jobsearch?

This is an entirely different matter from whether you choose to give the advisor access to your searches on the site - which is voluntary.

You seem quite intent on deflecting attention away from the claim made by jobseeking help by making things up and putting words in my mouth. Since you cannot actually respond and show me eactly where I said these things, I suggest that they are nowhere but in your own head. Hence I shall ignore you from now on until you do evidence your assertions.

However, I am still waiting for someone - anyone - to evidence the assertion that jobseekers are safe in refusing to use the UJM because to issue such an instruction is contrary to law.

JethroUK

xsupercarlx wrote: »

To be honest, if I was to 'mandate' that you sign-up to that site then you would have to or else you would be sanctioned, I wouldnt ask for access details as thats your business. All I want to see is evidence you're applying for jobs, not fussy about the site or the medium.

.....

You are spot on

Thats pretty well the sum and substance of their Job Seekers "Agreement" and as such about as legally tangled as it will get

Essence of which is that they need to evidence they are actively "Job Seeking", to get their "Job Seekers" allowance - how they do that is up to their advisor at the time - if their advisor is 'not satisfied' then they will get sanctioned - thats it - thats the 'agreement' - end of

xsupercarlx

JethroUK wrote: »

You are spot on

Thats pretty well the sum and substance of their Job Seekers "Agreement" and as such about as legally tangled as it will get

Essence of which is that they need to evidence they are actively "Job Seeking", to get their "Job Seekers" allowance - how they do that is up to their advisor at the time - if their advisor is 'not satisfied' then they will get sanctioned - thats it - thats the 'agreement' - end of

Glad someone understood me, and the other fellow too.

krok

SarEl wrote: »

You really do appear to have some difficulty reading the English language, don't you? I was not not aware that I needed to inform you of my professional background before posting - I note that although I have asked, neither you nor jobseeking help have explained the basis on which you are qualified to advise people here on refusing to do as a Jobcentre advisor instructs in relation to job search methods. And by the way - we usually use the word barrister without inverted commas. But you are welcome to use inverted commas or not around your own professional status. Just let us know what it is so that we can all judge the weight of your assertions.

Since you now claim that you were only commenting on my post, then (a) you have not done so accurately and (b) if you are not supporting the view of the OP, can you clarify that you are disassociating yourself from any suggestion that jobseekers should refuse to use the UJM?

I am asking you once again - Where exactly did I say that jobseekers need to do as they are told? Your original allegation also added "without question" - where did I say that? Come on, it is less than 14 lines of text - it can't be that hard to find the bit where I said it can it?

You will find, if you actually read what I posted - and it really is only 14 lines so it isn't that hard to do - that I did not comment at all on whether the UJM is mandatory or not because that is an irrelevancy. Contrary to jobseeking helps assertion, it does not require a change of law, and refusing to use a legitimate job search method when told to do so by an advisor should, quite definitely means that you should expect to be sanctioned. On what possible reasonable grounds could someone out of work suggest that using a site that has jobs advertised on it is unreasonable? Will you be putting that particular argument to your advisor when and if you are asked to use the site for your jobsearch?

This is an entirely different matter from whether you choose to give the advisor access to your searches on the site - which is voluntary.

You seem quite intent on deflecting attention away from the claim made by jobseeking help by making things up and putting words in my mouth. Since you cannot actually respond and show me eactly where I said these things, I suggest that they are nowhere but in your own head. Hence I shall ignore you from now on until you do evidence your assertions.

However, I am still waiting for someone - anyone - to evidence the assertion that jobseekers are safe in refusing to use the UJM because to issue such an instruction is contrary to law.

This is why you should not give away your details to a so called job search site. Are you not aware that forcing someone to give their personal details to a third party breaches the data protection act.
This is a letter i gave to the job center manager last time i signed on. I have had no trouble from them since.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am trying to find a job. I search for jobs. I apply for any for which I am qualified. I even apply for some for which I am not qualified but which I believe I could do. I have applied to register on the Universal Jobmatch site. But I do not consent to have my personal details given to a third party.

You must be aware that the internet is used by malicious and mischievous people who try to trick others into giving up valuable personal information which can be used for criminal purposes.

The first Principle of the Data Protection Act, 1998, gives me the legal right to withhold personal information. I do not give my consent for my personal information to be given to commercial organisations which I choose not to give it to. It is not necessary for me to give away this right for the purposes of searching for a job. This is particularly important in offering protection against my personal information being used by criminals.

Monster Jobs has been hacked into before and will be hacked into again.

Government sites have been hacked into before and will be hacked into again.

Information held by the Government, and supposedly kept secure, has been lost and made public - and will be again.

I have no faith in the ability of Monster Jobs or in the Government to keep my personal information safe.

There is an admittance on the Universal Jobmatch site that the security of personal information cannot be guaranteed.

There is no guarantee that personal information cannot be transferred to any country in the world, which is against the Eighth Principle of the Data Protection Act, 1998.

My rights to the privacy of my personal information are also guaranteed under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Job seekers are asked to make their personal information public but the Government will not and cannot offer any protection for it nor does it offer any compensation for the job seekers whose information will be used for criminal purposes.

Anyone registering with the Universal Jobmatch site could be open to exploitation by unscrupulous and fake employers. To get a job, one needs to give the potential employer their name, address, date of birth, NI number and bank details. Job seekers will be forced to hand over this information to anyone who claims to be an employer and who claims to be offering a job to the job seeker. We have already seen bogus job advertisements, including one supposedly for MI6 and another one with a Thailand email address which was a clear attempt at identity theft, and which were not intercepted before appearing on the Universal Jobmatch site. The administrators of that site are clearly incapable of running it correctly and there is no guarantee that matters will improve: every Government-sponsored computerised system has been found to be faulty, and this one follows that pattern.

Job seekers are asked to make their personal information public but the Government will not and cannot offer any protection for it nor does it offer any compensation for the job seekers whose information will be used for criminal purposes.

Because of everything alluded to above I most strongly object to being forced to sign my rights away with Universal Jobmatch. It is an infringement of my rights under the Data Protection Act, 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, and will not enhance my ability to find a job. It will leave me vulnerable to criminal activity and could put me in danger in ways that are yet to be determined.

I would only sign my rights away by giving permission to the dwp to see my personal data with the Universal Jobmatch site if I receive a signed letter from a member of the Job Centre or the Department for Work and Pensions which acknowledges my objections and which states that I am being forced or compelled to register on the Universal Jobmatch site under the threat of sanctions.

The letter must contain a complete copy of this letter and must allude to it. It must also agree that I will be entitled to compensation if my personal details are used for criminal purposes or in some way that harms me, my reputation or my prospects.

If I do not receive that letter it will be obvious that there is no legality in the compulsory registration on the Universal Jobmatch site.

If I receive that letter, it will be tacit agreement that the one signing it, or the organisation they represent, will be liable for the payment or provision of any compensation or any other form of redress obtained by me, or by others on my behalf, for the forced loss of my rights under the Data Protection Act, 1998 and/or under the European Convention on Human Rights, or for any loss or inconvenience caused by criminal or mischievous activity because of my personal details being on the Universal Jobmatch site.

I repeat that I am trying to find work, I search in various ways and places and I do not need to give permission to the dwp to see my data on the Universal Jobmatch site but would do so under protest (and maintaining my rights) if given the guarantees I have asked for in this letter and the acknowledgement that I was being coerced by threat of sanctions.

Yours faithfully

SarEl

I am not at all clear why krok has linked my post to his comments - I did not suggest that anyone give away their details to a third party and I am well aware of the provisons of the Data Protection Act (which I did not even mention).

Personally, I think that lengthy letters explaining why you won't do something that you don't have to do are pointless and simply draw attention to youself. But each to their own...

recoverydust

krok wrote: »

This is why you should not give away your details to a so called job search site. Are you not aware that forcing someone to give their personal details to a third party breaches the data protection act.
This is a letter i gave to the job center manager last time i signed on. I have had no trouble from them since.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am trying to find a job. I search for jobs. I apply for any for which I am qualified. I even apply for some for which I am not qualified but which I believe I could do. I have applied to register on the Universal Jobmatch site. But I do not consent to have my personal details given to a third party.

You must be aware that the internet is used by malicious and mischievous people who try to trick others into giving up valuable personal information which can be used for criminal purposes.

The first Principle of the Data Protection Act, 1998, gives me the legal right to withhold personal information. I do not give my consent for my personal information to be given to commercial organisations which I choose not to give it to. It is not necessary for me to give away this right for the purposes of searching for a job. This is particularly important in offering protection against my personal information being used by criminals.

Monster Jobs has been hacked into before and will be hacked into again.

Government sites have been hacked into before and will be hacked into again.

Information held by the Government, and supposedly kept secure, has been lost and made public - and will be again.

I have no faith in the ability of Monster Jobs or in the Government to keep my personal information safe.

There is an admittance on the Universal Jobmatch site that the security of personal information cannot be guaranteed.

There is no guarantee that personal information cannot be transferred to any country in the world, which is against the Eighth Principle of the Data Protection Act, 1998.

My rights to the privacy of my personal information are also guaranteed under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Job seekers are asked to make their personal information public but the Government will not and cannot offer any protection for it nor does it offer any compensation for the job seekers whose information will be used for criminal purposes.

Anyone registering with the Universal Jobmatch site could be open to exploitation by unscrupulous and fake employers. To get a job, one needs to give the potential employer their name, address, date of birth, NI number and bank details. Job seekers will be forced to hand over this information to anyone who claims to be an employer and who claims to be offering a job to the job seeker. We have already seen bogus job advertisements, including one supposedly for MI6 and another one with a Thailand email address which was a clear attempt at identity theft, and which were not intercepted before appearing on the Universal Jobmatch site. The administrators of that site are clearly incapable of running it correctly and there is no guarantee that matters will improve: every Government-sponsored computerised system has been found to be faulty, and this one follows that pattern.

Job seekers are asked to make their personal information public but the Government will not and cannot offer any protection for it nor does it offer any compensation for the job seekers whose information will be used for criminal purposes.

Because of everything alluded to above I most strongly object to being forced to sign my rights away with Universal Jobmatch. It is an infringement of my rights under the Data Protection Act, 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights, and will not enhance my ability to find a job. It will leave me vulnerable to criminal activity and could put me in danger in ways that are yet to be determined.

I would only sign my rights away by giving permission to the dwp to see my personal data with the Universal Jobmatch site if I receive a signed letter from a member of the Job Centre or the Department for Work and Pensions which acknowledges my objections and which states that I am being forced or compelled to register on the Universal Jobmatch site under the threat of sanctions.

The letter must contain a complete copy of this letter and must allude to it. It must also agree that I will be entitled to compensation if my personal details are used for criminal purposes or in some way that harms me, my reputation or my prospects.

If I do not receive that letter it will be obvious that there is no legality in the compulsory registration on the Universal Jobmatch site.

If I receive that letter, it will be tacit agreement that the one signing it, or the organisation they represent, will be liable for the payment or provision of any compensation or any other form of redress obtained by me, or by others on my behalf, for the forced loss of my rights under the Data Protection Act, 1998 and/or under the European Convention on Human Rights, or for any loss or inconvenience caused by criminal or mischievous activity because of my personal details being on the Universal Jobmatch site.

I repeat that I am trying to find work, I search in various ways and places and I do not need to give permission to the dwp to see my data on the Universal Jobmatch site but would do so under protest (and maintaining my rights) if given the guarantees I have asked for in this letter and the acknowledgement that I was being coerced by threat of sanctions.

Yours faithfully

That is a truly awesome letter.

This is a very interesting debate too
xxx

xsupercarlx

IMO (And its my human rights to have an opinion) that is a cop-out.

Are you saying you dont even use other sites like Indeed or totaljobs? You can be scammed anywhere, using any medium, What I would tell my clients is to get in contact with us if they receive a response and we will check them out if they are not sure about it.

Do you apply for jobs by post? I can predict that a percentage of letters will get opened by mail staff, will you refuse to post mail as it may be opened and seen by the unscrupulous?

Do you phone employers who advertise? How do you know you are talking to who you think you are talking to? Could be a scam!

Do you visit potential employers in person? How do you know they are who they say they are? Could be a scam!!

As for bank details, you shouldn't be giving those details away until you are certain of employment, till you receive a contract and see the employer is legit, you don't just throw it up online.

It seems like the safest thing you could do is stop applying for jobs, you cant be selective, it's all or nothing. IMO you are paid to find work using all available methods.

If you can get away with that letter then fine, but down here, you will get sanctioned by refusing to use all online sites, the only excuse I can think of is that you're totally hopeless with computers. We will refer you for training though. If I mandate that you come in for a 1 hour intensive job search, I don't think a copy of that letter would get you off the hook.

BTW it's not my intention to offended you or others.

recoverydust

SarEl wrote: »

Personally, I think that lengthy letters explaining why you won't do something that you don't have to do are pointless and simply draw attention to youself. But each to their own...

I do love your posts and would love to have your barristorial(?) comprehension, gravitas and wit.

I dont though, I am now just another frustrated, frightened benefits scrounger with disabilities (mental and fluctuating ones) in social housing trying to find my own best way to survive now that working is not a possibility.

I am however very much in favour of long letters - if by writing them I draw attention to myself do you do case work?

Thank you
xxx