Universal Jobmatch - non mandatory
Options
Comments
-
A letter can be remarkably effective.someonesgottosayit wrote: »I suggest you read and understand the act, as that statement is incorrect.
Again, I suggest you read and understand the act, as that statement is incorrect.
You only beleive it is, that doesn't make it so.
The rest of the letter is a joke, basically.
Apparently his letter was remarkably effective & did the job.
That counts more than useless opinions from idiots on the internet.0 -
someonesgottosayit wrote: »I suggest you read and understand the act, as that statement is incorrect.
Again, I suggest you read and understand the act, as that statement is incorrect.
You only beleive it is, that doesn't make it so.
The rest of the letter is a joke, basically.
Not one person has been sanctioned in this country for not using the UJS
jobsite, that is because DWP know that it is not mandatory, as my letter says i will consent if i have a letter from DWP stating that i will be sanctioned if i do not use their website.
As of yet i have had no letter. In fact i had a phone call from tham saying i had nothing to worry about by not consenting to DWP spreading my personal details all over the internet for any would be employer to see.
And that Mr know it all is a fact.0 -
If you work for the DWP you too could find yourself out of work and being pressured into signing for UJM.
The redundancies have started and more will follow. But at least you will know that it is not mandatory. Will you sign. lol.- Department for Work and Pensions group
Vote YES for strike action
3 December 2012
PCS is balloting all members in the DWP for strike action and an overtime ban to oppose compulsory redundancies and for more staff.
The ballot will start on 12 December and end on 10 January.
Please make sure that you vote. PCS strongly recommends that you vote YES/YES.
There is no justification for these redundancies
DWP has issued compulsory redundancy notices to 43 staff. There is no justification for these redundancies. There is plenty of work for these staff to do. There is no shortage of work in DWP.
We need more staff not less
DWP needs more staff, not less to cope with high workloads. Making staff redundant means more work, pressure and stress for everyone else. 43 staff may be gone but their work doesn’t go away.
These members want to keep working
The staff facing compulsory redundancy want to keep working for DWP. The department responsible for finding jobs for people should not be making staff compulsorily redundant.
You could be next
This is the first time the DWP has ever issued compulsory redundancies. Security from forced redundancy has always been valued as one of the good things about working for the DWP. This is a clear signal from the DWP to all staff that they are prepared to make anybody compulsorily redundant if they want to. You could be next.
This is the last straw
Our pay is frozen or cut, our pensions attacked, our terms and conditions attacked and our jobs are getting more stressful, redundancies are a last straw that we will not accept.
PCS is fully supporting these members
Our union has done everything possible by negotiation. The DWP’s decision to hand out compulsory redundancy notices to these staff is an act of extreme provocation.
USE YOUR VOTE - VOTE YES/YES
Downloadable version: 053 Vote Yes for strike action0 -
That counts more than useless opinions from idiots on the internet.
Still waiting for a couple of idiots on the internet to quote the law they say exists. And waiting.... and waiting...
Oh.., and still having problems with English too? Krok has not refused to use the site (subject of thread - you can refuse to use the site) - they have refused to make their setting public instead of private, which you are allowed to do!0 -
it is mandatory I have a direction to prove that I have signed up for this by next signing onCalm 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.0 -
-
it is mandatory I have a direction to prove that I have signed up for this by next signing on
Redeye - nobody on here can sanction you, or tell you you can't be. Ignore people telling you what to do - they won't be there when you sign on. You just have to use the site to jobsearch and show you have - nothing else.
It has been my experience in life that there are a whole load of people who will sit around telling you what you ought to do, and what they would tell them if they were there. They never are and they never do. And if they are there, they are at the back of the room and never open their mouths. If John539 and/or jobseeking help want to tell their advisors that they refuse to use the site, them let them. That is their choice. That is no reason why you should.0 -
but I was given a bunch of letters that was printed out before I was seen to and there were a $#!7 loads in the box where they pile peoples signing books.Mandatory means compulsory for everyone, it is clearly not.
You are in a one on one situation with your advisor & whoever you're dealing with.
Advisors will say anything.
Something fishy going on, if you block all cookies you get a 404 page.
Tracking what you are doing while you are job searching? time to find a proxy server I think0 -
It's exactly same as your advice.Redeye - nobody on here can sanction you, or tell you you can't be. Ignore people telling you what to do - they won't be there when you sign on. You just have to use the site to jobsearch and show you have - nothing else.
It has been my experience in life that there are a whole load of people who will sit around telling you what you ought to do, and what they would tell them if they were there. They never are and they never do. And if they are there, they are at the back of the room and never open their mouths. If John539 and/or jobseeking help want to tell their advisors that they refuse to use the site, them let them. That is their choice. That is no reason why you should.
JC managers & advisors are under pressure to sign up people by hook or by crook.
They'll tell people anything, any old rubbish.
But it's up to each person how they deal with it.0 -
It's exactly same as your advice.
JC managers & advisors are under pressure to sign up people by hook or by crook.
They'll tell people anything, any old rubbish.
But it's up to each person how they deal with it.
No it isn't eaxctly the same as my advice. I didn't suggest it was any old rubbish and I didn't suggest, or support the suggestion, that people not comply because it was against the law. I see absolutely nothing wrong with requiring jobseekers to "seek" for jobs - wherever they may be advertised.
You asked what my qualifications were to comment on the law - you have not been courteous enough to respond to my request to explain what qualifies you to advise people on benefits as to what they should or shoud not do. Nor has anyone told me where this law is.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.3K Life & Family
- 248.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards