Universal Jobmatch - non mandatory

csmw

krok wrote: »

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.

Errr sorry but that is not a fact, I have seen people sanctioned for failing to register for ujm when directed....and that unlike the nonsense you have just spouted is a FACT!

csmw

krok wrote: »

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 action

Where does it say that it is because of ujm, dwp is a very large organisation it dosent even specify if it is within the jcp

john539

csmw wrote: »

Errr sorry but that is not a fact, I have seen people sanctioned for failing to register for ujm when directed....and that unlike the nonsense you have just spouted is a FACT!

And have these been appealed or tested as reasonable ?

red_eye

I think this deserves a thread of its own https://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/GetJob.aspx?JobID=509977

denla

I get the feeling jobseeking and some others are job centre plus advisors and trying to trick people into getting sanctioned. Offer wrong advice and more benefit seekers get sanctioned, and they get more commission for meeting targets.

csmw

denla wrote: »

I get the feeling jobseeking and some others are job centre plus advisors and trying to trick people into getting sanctioned. Offer wrong advice and more benefit seekers get sanctioned, and they get more commission for meeting targets.

We do not get commission lol that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!! And if you read my post I have disagreed with jobseeking help. It simple actively seek work, attend all appointments and follow what is written on your jsag and it highly unlikely you will be sanctioned....

SarEl

I have now asked john539 and jobseeking help several times to provide:
(a) the basis in law upon which it is claimed that jobsearching on the UJM cannot be directed by Jobcentre advisors
(b) any basis at all upon which they claim that claimants have the right to refuse to search the UJM for jobs
(c) their qualification to provide such advice to claimants

Since they have steadfastly refused to provide such information or evidence to support their arguments on this thread, then I think we can draw our own conclusion as to the value of their advice.

I have no interest in participating in yet another thread discussing the relative merits or demerits of the UJM - that is opinion and everybody is entitled to hold the opinion they wish on the matter. Just so long as everyone is also clear that the "advice" given here that claiants can refuse direction to use the UJM is also opinion and has no basis in law or anything else.

iluvmarmite

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.

Granted, I wouldn't mandate that you do it because I think the site is rubbish and has been nothing but trouble. I just tell client/customers to use sites like 'Indeed'.

If i crossed a 'smart' JSA claimant who tried to wow me with his awesome loophole skills, I would just mandate that he turn up Monday to Friday 9am till 3pm to search for jobs, I bet they find something pretty sharpish (I'm talking about the blatantly lazy, not those who are genuinely seeking work). Never had to do it before but a few are pretty close.

My advice to claimants, don't go to the JCP or work programme provider saying things like "Ahaa, I don't have to comply because of blah blah blah", you'll get their back up and they will make life hard for you, you can waste 20 mins of their time but they can waste your entire week.

As some one already pointed out this looks very malicious, it seems if someone says something they don't like, if someone had the NERVE to go against something they have been told to do, wether they have to do it or not by law or legislation or whatever, then the high and mighty job advisor can make their life hell, and probably enjoy doing it, how great must it be to have the power to see someone starve, to take their money away from them, what happy little disscussions you must have in the staff room. "JCA 1, that little !!!! just told me its not mandatory to do this or that" JCA 2, " oh just make him come in from 9-3 and sit in the corner all day, after all you have the power to do that" followed by fits of giggles.

As you have already mentioned, you have not said what your job is at the job center so for all we know you could be the little lady who stands on reception booking everyone in, or you could be the cleaner, full of admiration for the wonderful advisors who have such power, you could leave work at night rushing to get on MSE to pretend you are someone more important than you really are to get attention and praise.

I have printed out your post and will be taking it to my local job center, I will ask them if it's true, that if they don't like something a claimant says then they will make life hard for them, it will be interesting to see what I am told.

krok

csmw wrote: »

Where does it say that it is because of ujm, dwp is a very large organisation it dosent even specify if it is within the jcp

Cant you read,

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

If you go to their website you will see it has everything to do withUJM

saintjammyswine

john539 wrote: »

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.

Just chipping in with one comment on this thread,


Mandatory means compulsory for the person who has been mandated to do something, not everyone.