After the Work Programme

red_devil

apparantely it will be based on the clients neec who does what which is about as clear as mud. Sorry need.

donnajunkie

red_devil wrote: »

apparantely it will be based on the clients neec who does what which is about as clear as mud. Sorry need.

why would anyone need to attend more often. if you have a good adviser it will be based on what you prefer. if you have a bad adviser they will base it on what they think will annoy you the most.

Chester666666

donnajunkie wrote: »

why would anyone need to attend more often. if you have a good adviser it will be based on what you prefer. if you have a bad adviser they will base it on what they think will annoy you the most.

My one is a petty vindictive bully but she can't bully me which upsets her more

sensibleadvice

Chester666666 wrote: »

You are the one claiming its free money

Claiming it's free if the claimant doesn't do anything for it actually.

sensibleadvice

Morglin wrote: »

My daughter applied for and got a part time job (24 hours) last year with a small building firm, they wanted someone to do the accounts etc.,

It wasn't particularly well paid, but she took it as a temporary measure until she could get into what she actually wanted to do.

She only wanted it as a stop gap, and has since moved on, but the point is that there were 512 applicants for this job, and that means 511 didn't get it - not because there was anything wrong with them, simply because there was only one job going.

It's not always about the applicants, it's often about too many people chasing too few jobs.

Lin

It is more about the applicants than not.

Otherwise if it were simply down to numbers all the other 511 need do is keep applying and their 'turn' to get a job will come round.

Anyone who's been involved in recruitment will know that a large chunk of those 512 will, almost without doubt be poor applications or worse. No disrespect to your DD, she was the best applicant out of 512 but the applicants with a realistic chance of being successful may have been in the 10's.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

a person failing to find work has no relevance to whether a course they do is pointless or not. oh and refering to a person as being pointless just shows you up for what you are and confirms your intentions here.

It has every relevance as to why they are placed on the course. People who can't acknowledge that the problem could well be with themselves, their attitude and unwillingness to change will continue failing to find work. Those with such intentions have evidenced that very well. Some are so ashamed of the truth they can't even acknowledge on an anonymous forum how long they've been unemployed. I have wondered if these types truly believe what they are saying or are just in denial.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

the jobcentre worker who was posting here disagrees with you and thinks the poster is doing everything right. someone else even said they would employ them.

I think I may have posted that before, based on their attitude and approach on here I'd interview them.

Of course that doesn't explain why they're not getting any interviews when applying for so many jobs and the nay sayer's will continue to say there aren't enough jobs. Even in the current climate one should expect to get at least one interview out of a very few tens of applications.

sensibleadvice

red_devil wrote: »

apparantely it will be based on the clients neec who does what which is about as clear as mud. Sorry need.

As with any business, when it comes to prioritising it makes sense to review their biggest problem first.

Therefore makes sense to get those in who appear to be doing very little and have been claiming for a long time as these types are very poor value for the taxpayer.

melysion

You really do enjoy crapping on the long term unemployed from a great height don't you sensibleadvice?

How do you think your constant berating and patronisation of the long term unemployed on this forum is going to help them?

Do you aim to get them to see the ¨error of their ways¨ and magically find a job?

Or are you just enjoying making them feel like poo?

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

why would anyone need to attend more often. if you have a good adviser it will be based on what you prefer. if you have a bad adviser they will base it on what they think will annoy you the most.

Many would of course prefer a 'good' advisor to tell them not to attend very often when they're doing very little to find work.

If an advisor thinks a claimant isn't actively seeking employment they may well ask for more attendance which may annoy the claimant. But the fact remains the reason for requests for more attendance isn't to annoy but to ensure work is sought more actively.