After the Work Programme

mattcanary

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Sure they do, it's one of the perks when I'm in work.

Oh right, it's not the case then that you have been given the privilege of using the internet for work related tasks then.
And it could be taken away just like that if your employers knew you were spending half your working day on this website, rather than using the internet for work related research, etc.

Possibly I'm way out and you're really a high powered executive, running the NHS or a brain surgeon, or curing diseases, or something else really worthwhile
Somehow I doubt it though.

If you prove me wrong, I hold my hands up and apologise for goading you, just as you so enjoy goading others

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Claimants are treated on their merits that doesn't mean it's unfair. Advisors use judgement to determine what may be appropriate. Yo get something in black and white like job search is 7 days and moan that doesn't suit because advisors aren't there and you can't possibly take responsibility for your own job search over the weekend. You harp on about 'nasty' advisors when there's nothing to support such a claim. Constantly complain about why should the claimant do this or that whilst failing to acknowledge conditionality of JSA. Little wonder some people don't want to admit what a liability they are, even on an anon forum.

how would you like it if in your job you had to work harder than the bloke next to you? would you think its fair.
having something in black and white would be an agreement that does not require 7 days per week so that if i was ill one day it wouldnt matter because i could do what i had planned when i get better. someone saying its ok we wont sanction you if you are ill will not prevent it happening. you need more than someones word.
true i dont have any evidence to prove there are nasty advisers. has it occurred to you that i would not develop tactics to protect myself against such people if i was actually just making it up and they didnt actually exist. there would be no need.

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Gosh, employers wanting employees to work and be flexible. How unreasonable of them to consider business needs and the jobs that are derived from them.

there is a reason people usually have fixed hours of between 35 to 40 per week. employers have a right to expect people to do those hours and the employee has a right to expect to be able to get those hours. anything over that should be only if both parties agree.

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Overtime as required is written into many JD's. Where it's not, flexibility often is.

yes we know that and we know people end up having to do it whether they want to or not. doesnt make it right though.

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Sure they do, it's one of the perks when I'm in work.

so skiving is a perk of being in work. i doubt your boss would agree.

sensibleadvice

AP007 wrote: »

So serious question how do you get companies to not turn you down for

1 - being over qualified if the advert is misleading and seems not to be a junior role once you have applied and got the feedback

or

2 - you are out of work so they wont consider you even though you have hit all the criteria they are after

1) Well, for example, this ad did appear to be a junior AP role yet you tried to convince yourself otherwise rather than understand and accept the employers appraisal.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64380646&postcount=1815

2) Consider whether the employer thinks you've met all the criteria rather than it just being your perception.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

you talk like you are all wise and knowing and claimants are complete morons.

Not all claimants are morons.

AP007

sensibleadvice wrote: »

1) Well, for example, this ad did appear to be a junior AP role yet you tried to convince yourself otherwise rather than understand and accept the employers appraisal.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=64380646&postcount=1815

2) Consider whether the employer thinks you've met all the criteria rather than it just being your perception.

No the roles are not junior jobs and yes the replies like the last one said I met the criteria just not the one about being in work.

The one at Essence was not worded as a junior and no mention of a school leaver. Aren't we meat to apply for anything we can do? I mean there are people who say 'take anything'!! LOL

One role that was a 'junior' job was paying £34k! If that's a junior role then I have been underpaid since 1994!!

In your opinion is this junior?
http://ch.tbe.taleo.net/CH13/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=DAINC&cws=1&rid=1307

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Not all claimants are morons.

just those who dont agree with you then.

imatt

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Of course, it's always irrelevant or no one's business what your type do for a living. The type that are quick to chip in with asking others then make veiled implications when they're found wanting. If you were working you'd know that it's quite possible to post on here and work, sometimes concurrently. I guess your own limitations and knowledge in selection processes explain your employment status.

Again, being judgemental as ever. You really are a bore aren't you? I have said before that I am no longer claiming JSA.

When thinking of a reply to others posts, even when as simplistic and repetitive as yours, you cannot have your mind on the job in hand. Esp the amount of tripe you post daily.

Unlike yourself, I for one have better things to do than typing the same thing over and over again. You have far too much time on your hands. Obviously your job does not tax you enough physically and / or mentally enough. I'd find something constructive to do around your office such as cleaning the toilets, sweeping the floor or making the tea if I were you. And thankfully I am not!

And the sad thing is, you know you're totally ignorant about the main subject of this thread. Yet your stubbornness and conceitedness spurs you on.