After the Work Programme

donnajunkie

Morglin wrote: »

No, but they (as taxpayers) are footing the bills, both for the benefits, and the WP's, so if things aren't actually getting people into some sort of work, then it is of concern to both users of the services and everyone else.

That was the point of them!

Lin

but they are not criticising these programmes.

sensibleadvice

Chester666666 wrote: »

I haven't seen people making excuses
You seem too keen to attack the other forum members who are job seeking

Claiming some people don't have weekend internet access may be true in a very limited number of cases but certainly not for them or indeed those on here. But would seem convenient to tag with that group for job seeking (or lack of) purposes.

Pointing out the fact that a DWP advisor's is not the same as a job seekers agreement to a poster who has erroneously drawn that conclusion may be a fact they don't like being reminded about but it isn't attacking.

Attacking is more like, say, calling one of the best advisors a troll for pointing out facts they don't wish to hear.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

i feel like i am talking to a 2 year old. its very simple, if people must jobsearch 7 days per week then that service that supports them must be available 7 days per week.
another thing you missed is if its an essential requirement to qualify for jsa that you jobsearch 7 days per week then why do the majority not have that required of them?

You're acting like a 2 years old. I know you're not up on personal responsibility but do you really think job seekers need to have their hand held to such an extent they can't take responsibility for job searching for 2 days without support of an advisor?

Chester666666

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Claiming some people don't have weekend internet access may be true in a very limited number of cases but certainly not for them or indeed those on here. But would seem convenient to tag with that group for job seeking (or lack of) purposes.

Pointing out the fact that a DWP advisor's is not the same as a job seekers agreement to a poster who has erroneously drawn that conclusion may be a fact they don't like being reminded about but it isn't attacking.

Attacking is more like, say, calling one of the best advisors a troll for pointing out facts they don't wish to hear.

Best adviser? Who? The last few pages have been lacking advice

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

i am not talking about a 5 day week. i am talking about them requiring a 7 day week and it does not say except statutory holidays either. it simply says everyday and nothing else.

You're quite adept at saying it doesn't say this, it doesn't say that when it suits.

When it DOES say something like 'every' day you're also quite adept at stating what you perceive that doesn't include.

You think it's common sense that even on a 5 day week and after taking account of 8 days statutory holidays, that without allowing a further 70 days for sick and funerals pa you'd perceive it as 'get tough nonsense'.

Chester666666

AP007 wrote: »

The fit do want to work but the WP have no power to get anyone an interview. Throwing ££ out the window it is.

These schemes are there to tell the voters that are right wing that at least something is being done and to punish the unemployed for being unemployed, it's a calculation that that the money wasted is better then losing face

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

no i said it can mean monday to friday. my adviser did not say that it is 7 days and as far as i am aware they havent posted here. what one person percieves may not be the same as what another one does.

In which case you'll surely accept that is the case for advisors when they perceive sanction too.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

it means it is possible like i said that they may not mean 7 days. however they could be taking liberties and mean 7 days even though like you say they shouldnt.

So expecting people to keep their side of JSA is taking liberties now is it?

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

when on any course and the group is asked who has the net at home the majority always say no. i am the only person on my voluntary work that has the net at home.
all people should be treated the same. it is unfair to expect more of one person than another. yes it enables me to do more and i do do more but to make it a legal requirement is what is wrong.

From what you say you've got 2 days of job seeking with reduced competition. Why wouldn't you want to take an advantage in job seeking like that?

Why wouldn't you perceive your "doing all you can to find work' includes looking at weekends?

Chester666666

sensibleadvice wrote: »

In which case you'll surely accept that is the case for advisors when they perceive sanction too.

Perceive or set people up to be sanctioned? Or ignore phone calls as to why a person missed an appointment