Work experience at jobcentre offer

93123

Daedalus wrote: »

Pole dancer - fine.
Escort - fine.
Abattoir - fine.
Anything involving blood or people being sick - fine.
Carer for Peter Strinerfellow - fine.

If it is a lawful job, and you are claiming benefits on the explicit undertaking that you are seeking a job, all jobs are suitable. Don't like it? Don't claim benefits, it's a free country.

Um.

Lol is all I can say. Ridiculous.

MisterMan_2

Daedalus wrote: »

Why can you not do the work experience? Give one valid reason as to why it is an unreasonable request in order to receive benefits.

He's only been unemployed three weeks. It's better he concentrates on looking for a job whilst his skills are still fresh, because as time goes on the harder it will be to get back into his old profession. Work experience will also hinder his ability to search for a job during this critical period.

Also, like he rightfully said, he'll be taking the opportunity away from somebody who perhaps does need work experience. I know if I was made to perform work experience, I would not take up space on an already bustling CV to add a few lines to detail the low skilled tasks I was asked to perform during work experience in a job centre.

Finally, your motivation for wanting him to undertake work experience. It's not because you think it will help him is it, it's because you just like the idea of making people who have lost their job/fallen on hard times suffer.

imatt

Daedalus wrote: »

As in job seekers and the like benefits. Benefits that are designed to sustain you whilst you actively search for work. It shouldn't be there for you to wait till the perfect job comes up.

Sorry I see you meant the typo.



They can't, but they should. You are choosing between poverty or a job. Escorting isn't prostitution. Someone who works is a prostitute, they are selling their time, their brain and their labour for money.

Get on the phone to your lawyer, the Government makes the laws, there is no human right for the Government to pay you money.

Actually, there WAS a stink about various jobs of this ilk a few years ago on JCP. Involved 'performing' in front of a web cam at home and posting the footage on line.

http://http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-489964/Job-Centre-seeks-women-strip-8-hour-webcam-performers.html

Now would YOU be happy to have YOUR wife, girlfriend, daughter, niece, granddaughter to perform such work?

And this is long before the days of even worse Universal Jobmatch which is even more prone to scams and dodgy vacancies.

scooby088

imatt wrote: »

Actually, there WAS a stink about various jobs of this ilk a few years ago on JCP. Involved 'performing' in front of a web cam at home and posting the footage on line.

http://http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-489964/Job-Centre-seeks-women-strip-8-hour-webcam-performers.html

Now would YOU be happy to have YOUR wife, girlfriend, daughter, niece, granddaughter to perform such work?

And this is long before the days of even worse Universal Jobmatch which is even more prone to scams and dodgy vacancies.

But someone else's daughter, wife, girlfriend as such do that work already as long as they pay their way and it's legal then I would have no problem with anyone doing that as a job.

kitschkitty

chocofenix wrote: »

I think that having "work experience" will damage a CV that, until now, has only had long-term employment history on.

Thanks

Without wishing to join the debate about the rest of the post/topic I'd just like to point out that a CV is a self edited document so no-one has to put in any information they don't want to.

So you wouldn't even have to add it to your CV and no-one need ever know in the event you have any job/work experience you don't feel helps sell you as a the perfect candidate for the role you are applying for (with your CV).

MisterMan_2

scooby088 wrote: »

But someone else's daughter, wife, girlfriend as such do that work already as long as they pay their way and it's legal then I would have no problem with anyone doing that as a job.

Hahah, what has society come to, when people such as yourself would rather people prostitute their bodies than claim benefits.

Obviously you know none of the risks that happen even on online sex roles such as, for example, a fairly popular website specialises in "outting" people who work in such positions. Outting includes posting links to family members, personal details, addresses, contact details etc.

It would also be very difficult to escape from the sex industry once working in it.

I dispear at some of the people on this thread.

imatt

scooby088 wrote: »

But someone else's daughter, wife, girlfriend as such do that work already as long as they pay their way and it's legal then I would have no problem with anyone doing that as a job.

But would YOU apply for such a job? If so, then we can take it as read it's for the reasons you gave above. However, if no, then why not? If anyone else should turn this job down, would you say they were wrong to do so?

As MisterMan wisely says, applying for such a position could stay with you for many years to come. Suppose a young woman applies for this job and does it for even a short while She then trains to be a teacher. Could you imagine the mockery she'd receive if and probably when her students find out?

The point is this vacancy was advertised on the JCP system. Even though the employer said no one was obliged to apply, a jobseeker could possibly feel under pressure to do so.

Daedalus

The issue is you are opening the door to allow people to claim job seekers and refuse to take any job they have a personal problem with. That isn't right.

Should I be allowed to refuse all jobs in the private sector because I oppose capitalism and still be allowed to claim job seekers allowance?

MisterMan_2

imatt wrote: »

But would YOU apply for such a job? If so, then we can take it as read it's for the reasons you gave above. However, if no, then why not? If anyone else should turn this job down, would you say they were wrong to do so?

The point is this vacancy was advertised on the JCP system. Even though the employer said no one was obliged to apply, a jobseeker could possibly feel under pressure to do so.

This is the major issue, and it's all propagated by the Tories. The Tories have made everyone who is unemployed a useful scapegoat, even if it's in the case of the OP here, that they've only been unemployed for several weeks.

It's terrible, but I'm not surprised. The Tories have a history of separating and breaking up communities, and this time around it's those who fall on hard-times vs the rest of the UK population.

MisterMan_2

Daedalus wrote: »

The issue is you are opening the door to allow people to claim job seekers and refuse to take any job they have a personal problem with. That isn't right.

Should I be allowed to refuse all jobs in the private sector because I oppose capitalism and still be allowed to claim job seekers allowance?

The argument would hold if there were an infinite amount of jobs, but they're not.

It's better somebody take a job at the appropriate level of skills/qualifications, otherwise they're just taking a low level job from somebody who is only qualified for a low level job.

Obviously this shouldn't be the case for ever, but certainly within the initial period.