After the Work Programme

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Therein lies the problem, they don't wish to. Doing so may highlight there are solutions to these barriers, just not solutions they want to hear. It's much easier to blame others, the system and state for their predicament than do something about it.

if someone doesnt choose to start a thread on a forum about a particular problem they have then thats their prerogative. it does not justify any criticism of them.

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

All the more reason to focus on becoming the best applicant they can be.

indeed, but that wont change the number out of work.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

if someone doesnt choose to start a thread on a forum about a particular problem they have then thats their prerogative. it does not justify any criticism of them.

Of course it their prerogative, but then it's a bit rich to moan about what they wrongly perceive to be barriers to finding employment.

sensibleadvice

mro wrote: »

That's brilliant for you that you have 4 offers in 2 months.

But that does not qualify you to give advice to all & sundry who have come off 2 year government Work Programme or talk down to them in a condascending patronising way, saying their comments on their experiences are negative. They are comments of fact & direct experience.

I'm qualified as I have been through Work Programme and have direct experience of dealing with Jobcentre, their staff, systems & programmes.

My situation isn't relevant, all I'm saying is don't dismiss their comments & experiences as simply negativity.

Yes, everyone can do better in all sorts of way, but they are living on benefits surviving, being attacked & demonised on all fronts by government and other know alls, so there is a limit to what they can do.

I was actually asking how you are qualified to comment on finding work, not how you're qualified to stay on benefits. Sorry if that wasn't clear but it seemed obvious as the point being discussed was about getting through the job seeking minefield, presumably with the aim of finding a job

A poor applicant will remain a poor applicant if they can't, or don't want to recognise that they may be their own barrier to finding work. If they perceive constructive advice that could change that as patronising, condescending and demonising it's perhaps because they don't want to acknowledge it's not the systems, govt, WP that are the underlying problem.

20+ applications per week has been suggested by some on here so applying for way more jobs than I did because they 'have' to. That's 180 applications over 2 months with little or no interviews. What does that tell you? If it really is the case they have to knowingly apply for jobs they believe they won't get, why wouldn't they also do quality applications for jobs they can get alongside the lip service applications?

sensibleadvice

AP007 wrote: »

Oh yes and do come back and tell us what your results would have been in that 2 months was 2 years!!

Just spotted this edit.

It wasn't ever my intention to get to 2 years. Had the time been longer without success I'd have looked at the first barrier to failure. So, for example if there were no interviews that would point to something wrong in the application process, CV and content, type of jobs applied for etc. If applications were getting interviews but no offers I'd have looked at what was wrong with interview technique. What I wouldn't do is blame everything else as that is not conducive to the goal of finding work.

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Of course it their prerogative, but then it's a bit rich to moan about what they wrongly perceive to be barriers to finding employment.

how do you know if they are wrong if they dont even mention them.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

how do you know if they are wrong if they dont even mention them.

They're unemployed and claim there are barriers to employment that they're quite happy to specify every detail about - the state, govt, WP etc etc. Yet the very suggestion that the barriers to finding work could be more about them, their application, mindset etc they suddenly become mute, evasive, claim there no need for specifics, almost as though they're in denial....funny that.

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

They're unemployed and claim there are barriers to employment that they're quite happy to specify every detail about - the state, govt, WP etc etc. Yet the very suggestion that the barriers to finding work could be more about them, their application, mindset etc they suddenly become mute, evasive, claim there no need for specifics, almost as though they're in denial....funny that.

you suggested they should start a seperate thread about it. this is how this point got started. if barriers have been mentioned here it is in response to people like yourself who took the thread off topic. if any barriers mentioned are relevant to this thread then there is no need to start a seperate thread.

sniggings

sensibleadvice wrote: »

I was actually asking how you are qualified to comment on finding work, not how you're qualified to stay on benefits. Sorry if that wasn't clear but it seemed obvious as the point being discussed was about getting through the job seeking minefield, presumably with the aim of finding a job

A poor applicant will remain a poor applicant if they can't, or don't want to recognise that they may be their own barrier to finding work. If they perceive constructive advice that could change that as patronising, condescending and demonising it's perhaps because they don't want to acknowledge it's not the systems, govt, WP that are the underlying problem.

20+ applications per week has been suggested by some on here so applying for way more jobs than I did because they 'have' to. That's 180 applications over 2 months with little or no interviews. What does that tell you? If it really is the case they have to knowingly apply for jobs they believe they won't get, why wouldn't they also do quality applications for jobs they can get alongside the lip service applications?

I think you are missing the point.

You seem to be suggesting a well written application and CV will get you an interview, are you suggesting people lie on their CVs? of course they have to be to a standard, provided they are then employers are not stupid, they can see a padded out CV a mile off, you are either what they are looking for or not.

They may be looking for experience, a young person, a man, a woman, an old person, someone that hasn't changed jobs every 2 mntues etc etc some people no matter how they present their CV, the employer just doesn't want them, for any number of reasons.

Employers can pick and choose these days, why take a 35 year old man who has not worked in 2 years, had quite a few min wage jobs in the past etc etc when you can take on an 18 year old straight from school or a older woman that has just returned to work after bringing up a family.

A good presented CV is not the panacea you seem to be suggesting it is, you can change the paper, font etc but the person stays the same, and employers know how to see through a CV.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

you suggested they should start a seperate thread about it. this is how this point got started. if barriers have been mentioned here it is in response to people like yourself who took the thread off topic. if any barriers mentioned are relevant to this thread then there is no need to start a seperate thread.

You were complaining that "it is a waste of time" asking where to put a cover letter, you "already know their response. they will say you cant attach one and they agree its silly that you cant." So acknowledgement there's a barrier to finding employment.

You acknowledge solution of attaching a tailored cv with cover letter at the front, all as one attachment. Barrier removed.

More discussion on barriers until OP complained it was off topic, even though their barriers to finding work were discussed months ago.

I dare suggest that barriers might be with the individuals rather than systems, WP etc and it's dismissed as off topic.

OK, on topic, what happens after WP? As evidenced 6 months on, claimant continues to blame everything and everyone for their predicament and remains in the same situation. They rule out any barriers that put them in the spotlight as 'not for dicussion' and status quo remains.