Universal Jobmatch - Mandatory from next year

GMbabies

Gaz1971 wrote: »

Due to my housing benefit being cut, Ill be losing my home internet, so UJM wont be getting much use by me.

Another govt master stroke, cut peoples benefits and leave them without the means to search and apply for jobs. (I live 2 miles from my local library so its not an option)

I'm sorry to hear that

I'm sure other JC staff will probably tell you similar line of what csmw said earlier...

csmw wrote: »

I suggest if you don't like the way things are run, don't sign on its simple really.

BUT I suggest you write a letter to DWP and ask them what is a reasonable distance one should travel to have an access to the internet. If they say, one mile perhaps you could ask them for what other alternatives out there other than using the internet. Would they simply allow you to use telephone jobsearch or visit to the JC once a week?

The government thinks of a lifestyle of 'typical person' (e.g. plasma 42' TV, drinks, fags drugs, workshy etc) and if you don't fit in the box, they will tell you to sod off. It's almost...you have to be like a manufactured robot, everything must be same, nothing else exists but just as our fingerprints tell you, we are all different.

Nuisance91

Hi, can someone help me to understand this. I got a letter back regarding the decision maker and me not wanting to sign up.

Letter says they cannot pay me jobseekers allowance from 30 nov 2012 to 27 december because my reason was not good enough.

It also says national contribution credits cannot be awarded for that period.

Thing is I have had two payments since that date...so I am confused.

csmw

GMbabies wrote: »

I'm sorry to hear that

I'm sure other JC staff will probably tell you similar line of what csmw said earlier...


BUT I suggest you write a letter to DWP and ask them what is a reasonable distance one should travel to have an access to the internet. If they say, one mile perhaps you could ask them for what other alternatives out there other than using the internet. Would they simply allow you to use telephone jobsearch or visit to the JC once a week?

The government thinks of a lifestyle of 'typical person' (e.g. plasma 42' TV, drinks, fags drugs, workshy etc) and if you don't fit in the box, they will tell you to sod off. It's almost...you have to be like a manufactured robot, everything must be same, nothing else exists but just as our fingerprints tell you, we are all different.

And as I also stated before jobcentre now have internet access devices so that customers have available access to th Internet..... But people like you only read and hear what you want

GMbabies

csmw wrote: »

Again just another over personal post!!! Your issues should not be with individual advisor but those that put the regulations that we follow in place.

And I wasn't speaking about fraudulent claims I was talking about people on jsa that do nothing to look for work ie I has a customer who stated they had 28 interviews this month and when I called some of the companies they weren't even recruiting.....so are you saying people like that should be entitled to claim???

Do you think we do not know the system is flawed....we do not make the rules.

Before you criticise someone I suggest you walk a mile in their shoes

Ah so you just took the company's words without cross-checking...then? :eek:
I think right things for you to have done are:-
1) To ask the jobseeker for the proof of interviews e.g Companies headed paper with signed proof in case the jobseeker creates one himself.
2) Cross check with the company (which you've done)
3) If it doesn't match, perhaps you should have gone back to the company presenting the copy of interview attendance letter.

Especially with a big company or even a middle-sized companies, things does get cross wired and if you sanctioned that jobseeker on the basis of mere response from the company, you could have made that person a homeless! :eek:
I'm sure you've experienced miscommunication yourself at some point, where your department says one thing and other says different. We certainly have experience of it with DWP. The evidence doesn't change hence everything must be in writing. You are looking after other family's life and your silly mistakes can ruin people's lives, be it homelessness that might lead to divorce or bankrupcy. I wish you could have been thorough.

Pont

Gaz1971 wrote: »

Due to my housing benefit being cut, Ill be losing my home internet, so UJM wont be getting much use by me.

Another govt master stroke, cut peoples benefits and leave them without the means to search and apply for jobs. (I live 2 miles from my local library so its not an option)

Haven't read all the the way through so apologies if I've missed something.

However, Gaz, being 2 miles away from your local library ain't going to be a valid excuse! Primary school children (aged 4, 5, 6) are 'expected' to walk up to 3 miles a day before any transportation is provided. I think you'll find a grown adult is 'expected' to walk a damn sight further!

csmw

GMbabies wrote: »

Ah so you just took the company's words without cross-checking...then? :eek:
I think right things for you to have done are:-
1) To ask the jobseeker for the proof of interviews e.g Companies headed paper with signed proof in case the jobseeker creates one himself.
2) Cross check with the company (which you've done)
3) If it doesn't match, perhaps you should have gone back to the company presenting the copy of interview attendance letter.

Especially with a big company or even a middle-sized companies, things does get cross wired and if you sanctioned that jobseeker on the basis of mere response from the company, you could have made that person a homeless! :eek:
I'm sure you've experienced miscommunication yourself at some point, where your department says one thing and other says different. We certainly have experience of it with DWP. The evidence doesn't change hence everything must be in writing. You are looking after other family's life and your silly mistakes can ruin people's lives, be it homelessness that might lead to divorce or bankrupcy. I wish you could have been thorough.

None were big companies and the names that were given as being the interviewers did not exist/ were not know at said companies, I think that's proof enough. The customer did not have proof of the interviews either so please don't perceive to tell me how to do my job.

rabbit_nose

The fact that your friendly JC- helper,tells you that you have to tick the box should tell you something.It is not Mandatory...Its a sneaky way to get you to agree.If you cannot see this you may aswell roll over and die.It is just the start of them getting your data,also third party.Do not agree.How they think they can get away with this is beyond me.Trust me do NOT agree...

mvengemvenge

rabbit_nose wrote: »

The fact that your friendly JC- helper,tells you that you have to tick the box should tell you something.It is not Mandatory...Its a sneaky way to get you to agree.If you cannot see this you may aswell roll over and die.It is just the start of them getting your data,also third party.Do not agree.How they think they can get away with this is beyond me.Trust me do NOT agree...

You don't (currently) HAVE to tick the box, but you DO have to provide checkable/traceable evidence of applying for jobs. If you had the slightest idea how many people simply lie about what they've done, you'd be amazed.

The onus is on the claimant to prove what they have done, it is not on JCP advisers to spend hours checking vague clues out. This is about verifying job search, it is NOT about fishing for personal data.

If you are told at the start of a claim that if you can't *demonstrate* genuine job search, you could lose 4 weeks money, and your money gets stopped for 4 weeks because you refuse to show your job search, whose fault is it when your money gets stopped?

john539

mvengemvenge wrote: »

You don't (currently) HAVE to tick the box, but you DO have to provide checkable/traceable evidence of applying for jobs. If you had the slightest idea how many people simply lie about what they've done, you'd be amazed.

The onus is on the claimant to prove what they have done, it is not on JCP advisers to spend hours checking vague clues out. This is about verifying job search, it is NOT about fishing for personal data.

If you are told at the start of a claim that if you can't *demonstrate* genuine job search, you could lose 4 weeks money, and your money gets stopped for 4 weeks because you refuse to show your job search, whose fault is it when your money gets stopped?

How are you going to check anything unless it's a Jobcentre job referred through Jobcentre.

You don't have implicit permission to speak to a 3rd party employer about a private external confidential job application. If a doubt is raised or JC+ ask to check, fair enough.

You're just a private person, you could be anyone.

Obviously you can never be forced to tick the consent box, because it's against the law.
.

Tazni

I can see why they're doing it, but I can't say it's the best option.

I passionately HATE those on job seekers benefits, who just sit on their behind with no intention of searching for a job, but I don't think this will help those who genuinely are looking for a job and just need the financial support in the meantime.