We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Work experience at jobcentre offer
Comments
-
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.
No the amount of jobs is irrelevant.
You are saying that if you were offered X job you should be allowed to refuse it because of personal reasons. You can refuse it, but shouldn't be allowed to still receive job seekers.0 -
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?
No, its about refusing a job that that could potentially harm someone's future prospects if they walk into such a position with their eyes shut.
I take it that you would be equally happy that someone should apply to:
Marketing vacancies promising a massive salary, a managemet position and a whacking great salary in next to no time. As discussed here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1261101
MLM (Multi-Level Marketing) schemes.
Pyramid selling schemes.
Even though the vast majority of these schemes are dodgy and are being advertised on the JCP system RIGHT NOW, you would be happy for someone to be potentially scammed because "it's a job"? (or rather masquerading as one).0 -
No, its about refusing a job that that could potentially harm someone's future prospects if they walk into such a position with their eyes shut.
I take it that you would be equally happy that someone should apply to:
Marketing vacancies promising a massive salary, a managemet position and a whacking great salary in next to no time. As discussed here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1261101
MLM (Multi-Level Marketing) schemes.
Pyramid selling schemes.
Even though the vast majority of these schemes are dodgy and are being advertised on the JCP system RIGHT NOW, you would be happy for someone to be potentially scammed because "it's a job"? (or rather masquerading as one).
Yes I am happy for people to be scammed. YAWN.0 -
No the amount of jobs is irrelevant.
You are saying that if you were offered X job you should be allowed to refuse it because of personal reasons. You can refuse it, but shouldn't be allowed to still receive job seekers.
I'm not going to explain myself again, as you either have comprehension problems -- or -- because my argument makes sense and you can't logically counter-it, you've decided to argue with me over something I've not even said...
EDIT: and how is the number of jobs irrelevant? It's clearly not, just because you say so, doesn't mean the logic does not apply.0 -
Well, from your previous posts, jobseekers should be applying for anything, whatever the position.
And yes, the types of things I mentioned HAVE popped up on JCP and still do according to many jobseekers. I should know, I have applied for a few dodgy positions in the past that clearly should not have been allowed.0 -
Forget about all the dodgy roles that could be out there what about the ones that wont interview you even though you are qualified to do the job but because you are not in work they wont interview you or you have too much experience and get told they do not want to waste their time taking you on only to have to recruit again when you have got bored and moved on.Well, from your previous posts, jobseekers should be applying for anything, whatever the position.
And yes, the types of things I mentioned HAVE popped up on JCP and still do according to many jobseekers. I should know, I have applied for a few dodgy positions in the past that clearly should not have been allowed.
Daedalus talks as if the unemployed are turning jobs down. I certainly have never turned anything down and even argued to try and get interviews when they would not see me!
Then chanced I would ever get taken on as a lap dancer are slim indeed - I have more chance winning the Euro Lottery and I do not even play the lottery hahaWe’ve had to remove your signature. Please check the Forum Rules if you’re unsure why it’s been removed and, if still unsure, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0 -
I'm not going to explain myself again, as you either have comprehension problems -- or -- because my argument makes sense and you can't logically counter-it, you've decided to argue with me over something I've not even said...
EDIT: and how is the number of jobs irrelevant? It's clearly not, just because you say so, doesn't mean the logic does not apply.
Let me explain it as simply as I possible can.
"People shouldn't be allowed to claim benefits and refuse jobs"
"There aren't enough jobs"
The second comment is irrelevant and has no impact on the first. You see the condition 'refuse jobs' make it an inherent condition that a job vacancy must be available.
If you don't understand that then you need to, I don't know, read a book or something.0 -
Let me explain it as simply as I possible can.
"People shouldn't be allowed to claim benefits and refuse jobs"
"There aren't enough jobs"
The second comment is irrelevant and has no impact on the first. You see the condition 'refuse jobs' make it an inherent condition that a job vacancy must be available.
If you don't understand that then you need to, I don't know, read a book or something.
You're utterly simplifying the argument. Then again, maybe that's as complicated as you can understand. Let me frame it for you another way.
For example, do you think a physician, after three weeks of being unemployed, should be made to apply and accept low paid jobs, or undertake work experience in a job centre? Or do you think it would be more appropriate that he tried to get another job in his field, and those opportunities went to somebody more in need?..0 -
You're utterly simplifying the argument. Then again, maybe that's as complicated as you can understand. Let me frame it for you another way.
For example, do you think a physician, after three weeks of being unemployed, should be made to apply and accept low paid jobs, or undertake work experience in a job centre? Or do you think it would be more appropriate that he tried to get another job in his field, and those opportunities went to somebody more in need?..
If you are receiving job seekers allowance then you take the first available job that pays NMW+. Doesn't matter what your skills are, what job you want to do, how much you think you are worth. You can apply for the jobs you want when you are in a job, like most people do.0 -
How many people do you think who were earning over £30k will really be offered a job for £11k?If you are receiving job seekers allowance then you take the first available job that pays NMW+. Doesn't matter what your skills are, what job you want to do, how much you think you are worth. You can apply for the jobs you want when you are in a job, like most people do.We’ve had to remove your signature. Please check the Forum Rules if you’re unsure why it’s been removed and, if still unsure, email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards