After the Work Programme

Denning.

donnajunkie wrote: »

if thats how you see it then you are clueless.

Yes, well you would say that.

donnajunkie

Denning. wrote: »

Yes, well you would say that.

yes indeed, i can see the content of that post for what it is.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

if thats how you see it then you are clueless.

When claimants sign a JSAg agreeing to consider any jobs (after a certain period) yet excluding a whole raft of jobs such as office jobs because they're not cut out for that type of job that's aka picking and choosing which is not part of JSAg for LT unemployed.

Reneging on JSAg is sanctionable and presumably you'll endorse anyone that's sanctioned for refusing to actively apply for jobs and avail themselves to all possible opportunities? Or do you think it's OK to for some to refuse to apply for jobs on the basis they'd prefer not to because they're not cut out for it?

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

When claimants sign a JSAg agreeing to consider any jobs (after a certain period) yet excluding a whole raft of jobs such as office jobs because they're not cut out for that type of job that's aka picking and choosing which is not part of JSAg for LT unemployed.

Reneging on JSAg is sanctionable and presumably you'll endorse anyone that's sanctioned for refusing to actively apply for jobs and avail themselves to all possible opportunities? Or do you think it's OK to for some to refuse to apply for jobs on the basis they'd prefer not to because they're not cut out for it?

not cut out is another way of saying not capable. you dont have to apply for jobs you are not capable of. i could not get or keep an office job. it is not because i am not willing to work in an office. you are not expected to apply for every single job going. so you can prioritise.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

yes indeed, i can see the content of that post for what it is.

Yet you can't see they can see the content of a post like this for what it is.

donnajunkie wrote: »

it may seem like that but no that isnt the case. i am a person who is never going to work in an office doing a basic computer course. how is that a good thing for anyone except the provider who will get a load of cash.

LT unemployed refusing to apply for jobs they could do*= sanctionable.

*waits for them to find examples of what they can't do rather than consider what they can do*

AP007

donnajunkie wrote: »

it may seem like that but no that isnt the case. i am a person who is never going to work in an office doing a basic computer course. how is that a good thing for anyone except the provider who will get a load of cash.

Why would you not apply for office work?

Chester666666

donnajunkie wrote: »

not cut out is another way of saying not capable. you dont have to apply for jobs you are not capable of. i could not get or keep an office job. it is not because i am not willing to work in an office. you are not expected to apply for every single job going. so you can prioritise.

The jobcentre will sanction for applying for a job they feel you are not suited for
Eg the business owner that they claimed had no managerial experience
!!!!!!?

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

not cut out is another way of saying not capable. you dont have to apply for jobs you are not capable of. i could not get or keep an office job. it is not because i am not willing to work in an office. you are not expected to apply for every single job going. so you can prioritise.

For some office jobs you may not be capable. You've excluded every office job.

Quite odd considering using a PC, photocopier, filing, taking calls/messages, maintaining records, resolving queries etc are junior office functions and you do all those as part of job seeking.

Yet when there's training offered to make you more cut out you're looking for excuses to call the provider rather than see it as an opportunity to become capable of doing many of those jobs you're choosing to exclude yourself from.

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Yet you can't see they can see the content of a post like this for what it is.
LT unemployed refusing to apply for jobs they could do*= sanctionable.

*waits for them to find examples of what they can't do rather than consider what they can do*

i think what we have here is someone incapable of understanding very basic things. in that highlighted sentence it does not say i refuse to apply for a job i can get and do. stating that i dont think i will ever work in an office means i dont think i am capable of getting or keeping such a job.

donnajunkie

AP007 wrote: »

Why would you not apply for office work?

i have poor keyboard skills and am hopeless on the phone. many jobs require previous experience or some sort of qualification.