After the Work Programme

donnajunkie

tomterm8 wrote: »

I don't agree. I've seen jobs where the only application method was email, and I've seen jobs where the only application method was phone. So, it's not an abuse of power in my view.

And, at the end of the day, whatever contact method you use has to suit the conditions of JSA which is that you should be available for interview immediately (or, for some within 24 or 48 hours). How can you be available for interview immediately if no one can contact you?

Which, getting back to the original point, means even if you refuse permission to access UJM they can still send you matched jobs.

yes its a good idea to have these things. i am simply saying i dont think the rules require you to have them to qualify for jsa. some form of contact is required and a postal address is that.
available immediately from the moment you are informed.

iammumtoone

sensibleadvice wrote: »

You've pretty much exampled from reasonable to unreasonable in what you've said there.

In your opinion but someone else might view it differently.

sensibleadvice wrote: »

If somethings on the cusp of reasonable or not, the context and dialogue about why it may or may not be helps determine what is reasonable.

True, I am sure this is often debated in the workplace. However with the JC there is NO debate/dialogue if the DM decides it is reasonable end of story you are sanctioned no chance to put your side across why you thought it was unreasonable.

mro

csmw wrote: »

Why would we reimburse you to prove your looking for work, It's job seekers allowance...says it all in the title don't you think.

And yes of course people can print in the jobcentes, why would we have printers attached to the customer computers otherwise?

Abuse of power lol...If you dont have an email address or phone number how are the employers going to contact you...do you think most of them will write nowadays? its a pretty reasonable request. You need to be available as well as actively seeking

Jobseekers Allowance was simply renamed from Unemployment Benefit in 1990s.

It's a subsistence benefit to live on while looking for a job, nothing additional has ever been added for jobseeking.

Renaming in the 1990s does not change its primary purpose.

BillJones

iammumtoone wrote: »

In your opinion but someone else might view it differently.



True, I am sure this is often debated in the workplace. However with the JC there is NO debate/dialogue if the DM decides it is reasonable end of story you are sanctioned no chance to put your side across why you thought it was unreasonable.

OK, so that's the situation, so how are you going to deal with it?

sensibleadvice

iammumtoone wrote: »

In your opinion but someone else might view it differently.



True, I am sure this is often debated in the workplace. However with the JC there is NO debate/dialogue if the DM decides it is reasonable end of story you are sanctioned no chance to put your side across why you thought it was unreasonable.

Actually is was yours. See we agree already and you've not even realised. Is an advisor really going to be that much more nasty than me?

donnajunkie

csmw wrote: »

Why would we reimburse you to prove your looking for work, It's job seekers allowance...says it all in the title don't you think.

And yes of course people can print in the jobcentes, why would we have printers attached to the customer computers otherwise?

Abuse of power lol...If you dont have an email address or phone number how are the employers going to contact you...do you think most of them will write nowadays? its a pretty reasonable request. You need to be available as well as actively seeking

printing piontentially 100's of sheets of paper would cost a fortune. is it reasonable to impose such a financial burden? secondly as you say it can be done in the jobcentre it doesnt matter. i suggest everyone should impose the cost onto them by useing up their paper and ink.
i agree its best to have those things. i say abuse of power because the rules dont require you to have them to qualify for benefit.

mro

donnajunkie wrote: »

printing piontentially 100's of sheets of paper would cost a fortune. is it reasonable to impose such a financial burden? secondly as you say it can be done in the jobcentre it doesnt matter. i suggest everyone should impose the cost onto them by useing up their paper and ink.
i agree its best to have those things. i say abuse of power because the rules dont require you to have them to qualify for benefit.

Unlikely as advisors don't read any of this or ask for it, unless maybe thay want to catch someone out.

Would also become a massive burden & time consuming with people printing off masses of pointless paper & accessing different websites if they can.

Most sensible experienced advisors have learnt it's a waste of time, when they're meant to be helping people get a job.

iammumtoone

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Actually is was yours. See we agree already and you've not even realised. Is an advisor really going to be that much more nasty than me?

I did realise by what you wrote you agreed with me, what I am saying is just because two people see it the same it doesn't mean the third will. I wouldn't think of it as an adviser/DM being 'more nasty' I just don't know what they would view as 'reasonable' especially if it was on the cusp as you put it.

csmw

iammumtoone wrote: »

In your opinion but someone else might view it differently.



True, I am sure this is often debated in the workplace. However with the JC there is NO debate/dialogue if the DM decides it is reasonable end of story you are sanctioned no chance to put your side across why you thought it was unreasonable.

You would get to put your side across, its part of the refferal template. you would have to answer questions relating to why you didnt apply and then the dm would decide if it was a reasonable refusal

iammumtoone

csmw wrote: »

You would get to put your side across, its part of the refferal template. you would have to answer questions relating to why you didnt apply and then the dm would decide if it was a reasonable refusal

Ah my apologises I didn't realise that I read on here (and I have no reason to believe people are lying) that the referral for 'not actively seeking work' is automatic and you don't get your chance to have a say. In fact there is a thread running at the moment that a claimant can't even get the information out of the JC what jobs they were suppose to apply for yet alone get a chance to say why they didn't.