After the Work Programme

sniggings

csmw wrote: »

Have you ever thought that maybe some people actually find it easier to provide the information in that way..
Because some people actually want to work and use all the tools available to them.
That some people actually want to just get on looking for work instead of just trying to be as difficult as possible with their advisor`s

you have changed the argument, we were talking allowing access, what has allowing access got to do with whether someone wants to work?

You have to use the site, that is a given, allowing access is a different matter.

csmw

sniggings wrote: »

you have changed the argument, we were talking allowing access, what has allowing access got to do with whether someone wants to work?

You have to use the site, that is a given, allowing access is a different matter.

Read the 1st line in my post.

My point is if you really just want to work, why spend valuable time wasting it in just trying to be difficult with the advisor over access. I really don't see what the big deal.

You seem to think giving access makes it easier to impose a sanction, or the only reason an advisor needs access is to sanction. Which it just nonsense.

sniggings

csmw wrote: »

Read the 1st line in my post.

My point is if you really just want to work, why spend valuable time wasting it in just trying to be difficult with the advisor over access. I really don't see what the big deal.

You seem to think giving access makes it easier to impose a sanction, or the only reason an advisor needs access is to sanction. Which it just nonsense.

Up to now your argument is "why be difficult" you have not given one good reason to allow access, you tried to say allowing access shows you want to work? not sure how that works.

If access is so important and really helps a claimant get work then why has the government not made it a condition?

I totally wanted to work and have got a job starting soon, yet I got told to apply for a self employed vacany that wasn't even a job but a agent ad, and also a job on zero hours contract, both I believe I do not have to accecpt? JSA staff do not have the time to help anyone get a job, they have 5 min slots, which is enough time to get you to sign on and make sure you are following the rules, all their time is used for that, not helping but looking for reasons to sanction you.

Yes a lot/some people need a kick up the backside but the advisers forget the rules are meant to be used to target those types of people, not everyone, yet people like me who try their best to follow the rules end up nervous wrecks.

csmw

sniggings wrote: »

Up to now your argument is "why be difficult" you have not given one good reason to allow access, you tried to say allowing access shows you want to work? not sure how that works.

If access is so important and really helps a claimant get work then why has the government not made it a condition?

I totally wanted to work and have got a job starting soon, yet I got told to apply for a self employed vacany that wasn't even a job but a agent ad, and also a job on zero hours contract, both I believe I do not have to accecpt? JSA staff do not have the time to help anyone get a job, they have 5 min slots, which is enough time to get you to sign on and make sure you are following the rules, all their time is used for that, not helping but looking for reasons to sanction you.

Yes a lot/some people need a kick up the backside but the advisers forget the rules are meant to be used to target those types of people, not everyone, yet people like me who try their best to follow the rules end up nervous wrecks.

As I've already said but I'll say it again SOME people find it easier. I also said personally I do not care how info/job search is provided.

If you have a full time jsag then you can only be matched to jobs above 24hrs a week.

Advisors in my jcp have a minimum 20 min slot with each customer, 5 min appointments are carried out by assistant advisors and that's only for wp customers.

I'm sorry but I disagree the rules are there for everyone not to target just the lazy.

sniggings

csmw wrote: »

As I've already said but I'll say it again SOME people find it easier. I also said personally I do not care how info/job search is provided.

If you have a full time jsag then you can only be matched to jobs above 24hrs a week.

Advisors in my jcp have a minimum 20 min slot with each customer, 5 min appointments are carried out by assistant advisors and that's only for wp customers.

I'm sorry but I disagree the rules are there for everyone not to target just the lazy.

then if they find it easier to provide the info that way then so be it, I allowed access and find it easier but I also saw it was also allowing them to see stuff they didn't need to see, when I logged on etc.

I'm slightly confused as you seem to go from, allowing access makes it easier to find work, then to it allows the claimant to pass on the info easier.

Anyway, glad you agree it's down to the claimant to do what they find the easiest, not what the adviser feels is needed.

I have to say tho, that most days what I go to sign on the adviser can not access the system or it's too slow so they just ask me if I did what was needed, I say yes, then they allow me to sign on :rotfl:

Podge52

The only reason I can see for allowing your advisor access to your ujm account is to make it easier for the advisor to track your activity.

If there are other reasons I'd be interested to hear them.

sniggings

Podge52 wrote: »

The only reason I can see for allowing your advisor access to your ujm account is to make it easier for the advisor to track your activity.

If there are other reasons I'd be interested to hear them.

I agree, i was tricked into it, was told the booklets had stopped and we had to do it online, turned out to be a lie but as I was a nervous wreck by this point, wondering when not if I would be sanctioned I just carried on allowing acess, but if they push it and start saying I never logged on one day or for not long enough, when access will be taken away from them for the little time I have left signing on.

red_devil

They lied to me also saying i had to give access but i knew i didnt i refused and do it the paper way.

stix62

csmw wrote: »

Well maybe try reading the whole post in context not just the bits you want to read.

I did read the whole post, in context. You say one thing and then twist it. If I have read it wrong it's due to your poor punctuation and grammar.

stix62 wrote: »

Well, not everyone, hey sensi?

Oh I do love the little keyboard warriors

:rotfl::rotfl:

Making a point with that one It wasn't aimed at you but some people round here think there's no such thing as a bad advisor, just bad job seekers. It's good to hear someone from JCP admit there is

Jerry_Mander

csmw wrote: »

Ujm IS a tool...

It certainly is, as are you!