After the Work Programme

sniggings

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Can you answer why would a genuine jobseeker be difficult?

depends what you mean by diffecult, if you mean allowing things the government has said is a free choice, then that is not being differcult.

Fact is, JSA advisers have enough powers to deal with anyone refusing to carry out the rules to claim JSA, as said applying your rights is not being diffecult, if they believe it is, change the rules.

AP007

sensibleadvice wrote: »

What's wrong with an advisor seeing just how hard you're trying to find work?

they can see this by the records you have to produce when you sign on.

sniggings

sensibleadvice wrote: »

What's wrong with an advisor seeing just how hard you're trying to find work?

ask the government, they say the adviser doesn't not need to be able to view your dirct gov site account to be able to do their job.

sensibleadvice

stix62 wrote: »

I doubt anyone has a problem with them having access if it was ONLY to look at recorded job seeking activities.
The reason I won't allow access is because an advisor can message you about a job or recommend you apply for one (through UJM) and if you don't act on that you will be sanctioned.

If it wasn't for that one and only reason I would have no problems whatsoever allowing access.

Yes, because heaven forbid an advisor recommends a job. What DO they think you're claiming JSA for.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

do you really think all sanctions that are made are fair and valid? it is fair to say a person that has those questions in mind is wondering why(curious) they do it. otherwise they wouldnt come to any conclusions. so why dont you answer those questions instead of firing them back at me. if someone is desperate for access to someones account and uses dishonest tactics to persuade them why wouldnt you be suspitious? they have no need to access your account if their intentions are 100% decent. they can do a honest job without access.

Desperate it your perception of why they're asking. If it were me in that situation I'd be considering if sanctions were appropriate based on what I'd done. Or not. Or whether the sanction would stick. Balanced against whether I was being obstructive and evasive following a reasonable request.

Aren't you curious why they're asking you?

sniggings

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Yes, because heaven forbid an advisor recommends a job. What DO they think you're claiming JSA for.

I've been matched with 2 jobs, one was zero hours which I do not have to apply for, and they other was a self employed vacancy that was not even a job but an agent looking to fill their books with Cvs, both were a waste of my time and the advisers, it was clear the adviser never even read the details, which means I either apply for unsuitable jobs or refuse to apply for them and explain my reasons, all a big waste of everyones time and likely to mark me out as a trouble maker for daring to disagree with the adviser.

Point is, these jobs are sent out, not to help, as the claimants has to apply for all jobs anyway, so why does the adviser need to send a link to a job, but to try and sanction the claimant for not applying for an unsuitable job.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

no you are.

Not at all. I regularly carry out tasks I don't like at work but are part of the agreement I have entered into with my employer.

Far from avoid them or complain about them, I proceed to carry them out without any sign of a bad attitude, recognising they're a necessary and reasonable function. In fact where possible I'll get them done first so they're done with.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

the poster seemed to be assuming not allowing access consumes great amounts of time.

Seems a fair point given the amount of time spent procrastinating over it.

sensibleadvice

csmw wrote: »

I think your a little confused!!

IE. If a customer was looking for a retail position, I see one in a window which says hand cv in etc, I then tell said customer I saw it and this is how to apply. Customer says ok I will go hand cv in, the vacancy then becomes a matched job.

Ah, so the advisors are effectively carrying out a support and networking function rather like family friends and colleagues etc do passing on leads and tips in the real world.

Seems fair enough and most helpful to a claimant who may not have much of a network to rely on.

sensibleadvice

iammumtoone wrote: »

So what is the point of stating hours? In that case the hours should be stated as 9.30 - 2.30 so it is clear and everyone knows where they stand. I appreciate you don't make the rules and thanks for the reply

sniggings wrote: »

that says it all...so what is th epoint of asking for the times the claimant can work if youa re not going to stick to that?

her kids might get out at 2.30, hence the 2.00 they gave as a finish time.

This is what !!!!es people off.

The same with the agreements, I have 3 types of jobs I down on my agreement and have to apply for 6 a week, yet every claimant has to apply for any job they can do, why lead the claimants down a path, thinking they have to do such and such to be within the rules but then hit them we "agreement what agreement, you apply for every god dam job on the site or get a sanction" :mad:

They should really be sticking reasonably within your guideline ....

Reasonableness applies somewhat in the working environment too.