A Warning: Job Centre goalposts moving.

Flyonthewall

AP007 wrote: »

Its because they are a not a jobseeker so they do not look for all the possibilities on the site etc

They probably just do a search and go 'there you go, lots of jobs'

What they need to do is say ok lets search 10 miles from a postcode and see what comes up

OR what if I put in this under skills what do I get

Or oh dear they are all third party adverts, how can that be!!!

Its like a job being on Jobsite and then Jobsite post an advert on Reed so when you see the job on Reed it says hit this link and it takes you to jobsite where the job is via an agency and to apply you now need an account on that site!

True. I hate when sites do that, but assuming you wait the half an hour for them to type in the search (because in my experience, no advisor can type more than one letter a minute) and they actually bother to click on a job they still never look at who has posted the job or where links lead. They scan the job description for a word that is in some way related to what you want to do and tell you to apply.

Flyonthewall

Nightranger wrote: »

Hmm, could be! I understand there have been glitches with the site although JC staff deny this. I also tend to look for admin jobs and I have to say that I have not really had a problem other than trying to convince employers given I have yet to get an interview in this area after five years. What I tend to do is go on and search within 5 miles (I know you are not supposed to do that but stay with me a moment) and limit to either Yesterday or Today depending on when I do the search. The beauty of this method is that you can retrain your sights to the next town along for each search but it reduces the number of returns you get so that it does not become a bit mind-numbing looking for a dozen pages with mostly bogus vacancies. In addition, it quite often exposes obviously bogus agency adverts because the same job will be repeated wherever you search from (you do not get this effect when searching over long distances from your hometown because all vacancies are mashed together). I live less than ten miles from Manchester but the search facility picks up the city centre in a ten-mile search and then gives me returns for ten miles the other side of the city and hence harder to get to than say, Blackpool or Southport (42 and 36 miles away respectively). One bug bear for me is that the search used to randomly decide that I should look at jobs in Kent but they seem to have corrected this unless it is a product of the specific searches I tend to use. It is certainly worth a try even if it means inputting more individual searches.

Note on edit: I tend not to use word searches BTW...in my case it is because I have three lines to chase in my career history and my admin experience could be better classed as communication but jobs are not always so named.

I already have to search using a town that's about 5 miles away from me because I don't think it knows where my town is.

I'm also in the middle of two cities and the nearest town is 5 miles away from one city so searching within 5 miles wouldn't bring up much if it does just bring up nearby jobs. Certainly wouldn't bring up any from the other city. So I have to search for jobs further away.

I also always search within 2 weeks and often set searches to newest first as I find it often brings up jobs that weren't there on the day it claims they were listed. I do hate the repeated jobs though.

AP007

Flyonthewall wrote: »

I already have to search using a town that's about 5 miles away from me because I don't think it knows where my town is.

I'm also in the middle of two cities and the nearest town is 5 miles away from one city so searching within 5 miles wouldn't bring up much if it does just bring up nearby jobs. Certainly wouldn't bring up any from the other city. So I have to search for jobs further away.

I also always search within 2 weeks and often set searches to newest first as I find it often brings up jobs that weren't there on the day it claims they were listed. I do hate the repeated jobs though.

Oh and then there are the jobs dated 2014!!!

Flyonthewall

AP007 wrote: »

Oh and then there are the jobs dated 2014!!!

lol not noticed that. Sure I've seen some that have been dated the previous year though.

Nightranger

AP007 wrote: »

You DO NOT need a UJM account to apply for jobs on there

You do not need to even have a UJM account

You do not need to give the JC access to your account

You have obviously been brain washed into thinking the UJM is great so please let us all know where you put a tailor made cover letter for all jobs you have applied for on it?

Id love to know

It is the worst site out there for looking for work.

Careful with the 'obviously's there AP007, for the record, my pet hate is people who put words into my mouth. I have not been brain-washed at all, what I am trying to say is that UJM can be used productively if you are cute about it but be aware that your SO may not share the same views as you and there are many people who will continue to be caught out by the moving goalposts even if YOU happen to know how the site works. OK, that out of the way let us clear up a few things.

You are essentially correct about not having to use UJM but in a lot of areas they would expect you to sign up especially if you are on the WP and attend regular job search activities or have good library access (ours is a bit chock-a-block these days so I am glad I have home access) so there isn't the alternative you may think [note: this is almost certainly area-dependent and I am sure the same is not expected of someone living in a remoter area of the country for obvious reasons]. Once signed up you cannot suddenly opt-out (again you may know this but a lot of people do not) so it is essential that anyone using the system knows how every bit of it works.

AP007 wrote: »

Click the button ALREADY APPLIED? Why would you do that or even think you have to? You don't?

True, you can always back up using the the 'Back' option but if you are signed in and you go on past a job that you have looked at I am sure it covertly records this information otherwise why have to give a reason in the first place. On the other hand if it is a job you would be interested in and are going to or have applied why not have a simple way of recording that activity...again why have the options if they are not used for anything? However, the point I am trying to make (and I have overheard a few conversations at my local JC) is that using UJM is and has not been adequately explained to a lot of people. All OK until the directive reaches your JC office and the friendly SO can subjectively decide you have not provided enough evidence of actively seeking. My main reason for adding this thread was to warn people that the goalposts are being moved and they may not realise, especially if they are using UJM. I am sure everyone agrees that it is pointless being wise after the event.

Nightranger

AP007 wrote: »

Oh and then there are the jobs dated 2014!!!

...and a completely sham one that did the rounds on Facebook recently.

Guys, just a small point of order - I did not make the original post to set up a debate about UJM specifically and please be aware that we are slightly drifting away from what I intended. Fair enough if I have been misunderstood and I do appreciate the feedback :T but whilst I am seething at the circumstances of my sanction, my reason for posting was because of the conversations I have overheard in my local JC. I made some basic assumptions about UJM match but I did genuinely apply for the jobs I claimed so compliance should have been easy to prove...particularly through UJM even though it is not the be-all-and-end-all in this context...but other people have almost certainly been in a worse situation than I have been and be honest, sanctions are not easy to overturn.

Flyonthewall

Nightranger wrote: »

Careful with the 'obviously's there AP007, for the record, my pet hate is people who put words into my mouth. I have not been brain-washed at all, what I am trying to say is that UJM can be used productively if you are cute about it but be aware that your SO may not share the same views as you and there are many people who will continue to be caught out by the moving goalposts even if YOU happen to know how the site works. OK, that out of the way let us clear up a few things.

You are essentially correct about not having to use UJM but in a lot of areas they would expect you to sign up especially if you are on the WP and attend regular job search activities or have good library access (ours is a bit chock-a-block these days so I am glad I have home access) so there isn't the alternative you may think [note: this is almost certainly area-dependent and I am sure the same is not expected of someone living in a remoter area of the country for obvious reasons]. Once signed up you cannot suddenly opt-out (again you may know this but a lot of people do not) so it is essential that anyone using the system knows how every bit of it works.



True, you can always back up using the the 'Back' option but if you are signed in and you go on past a job that you have looked at I am sure it covertly records this information otherwise why have to give a reason in the first place. On the other hand if it is a job you would be interested in and are going to or have applied why not have a simple way of recording that activity...again why have the options if they are not used for anything? However, the point I am trying to make (and I have overheard a few conversations at my local JC) is that using UJM is and has not been adequately explained to a lot of people. All OK until the directive reaches your JC office and the friendly SO can subjectively decide you have not provided enough evidence of actively seeking. My main reason for adding this thread was to warn people that the goalposts are being moved and they may not realise, especially if they are using UJM. I am sure everyone agrees that it is pointless being wise after the event.

I don't think being cute helps anything...

I think it's good you're warning people, but they're not really moving the goalposts, just making things stricter and not giving all the information to either staff or jobseekers. Things are still the same as they were it's just the JC are doing something about it.

Being on the WP I think they care even less about me than before considering I was never told anything about the site other than it exists.

The JC love things that are there for no reason at all.

Nightranger

AP007 wrote: »

no you are meant to search 90 minutes travelling time so that's a bit further than 5 miles to be fair

AP007 did you read the rest of that post or did you just choose a quote to argue with?

I clearly indicated I go to places 30+ and 40+ miles away on individual searches and both of these are outside the 90minute traveling criterion. This is because I understand the local transportation system and like a lot of major cities, it is harder to cross Manchester to a place just 20 miles away than it is to go all the way out to the coast twice that distance away. In addition, there isn't a travel time option under UJM but as I mentioned, set the search to 10 miles and it bounces you on to returns from 10 miles beyond the city centre on the other side from where I am. Finally, I cannot set the search too high because this is a dense area of the country for individual towns and whilst the transportation system is good compared to other places (I have lived in Gwynedd and Bedfordshire) some relatively close towns are not reachable on a commute, which involves more than one route [Note: an individual route can become vulnerable to traffic, breakdowns etc, imagine having three separate journeys on a marginal timing]. Also, I am not far from the Yorkshire border so it does not take much of a hoik in distance to capture places like Huddersfield, Bradford or Leeds and whilst I have no objection to these places, they would involve separate journeys routing through Manchester.

AP007

Nightranger I think you are TOTALLY missing the point!!

I know how to use the site perfectly well thanks

Tell me where you can add a cover letter?

How many interviews have you got from jobs that you have applied to that are actually ON the UJM site?

Nightranger

Flyonthewall wrote: »

I think it's good you're warning people, but they're not really moving the goalposts, just making things stricter and not giving all the information to either staff or jobseekers. Things are still the same as they were it's just the JC are doing something about it.

I am not sure I understand your argument here, my sanction was issued under the JS agreement I had at the time (only revised last week). Even the Work Programme provider agrees that I can demonstrate compliance so why is this NOT moving the goalposts? I fully appreciate the stricter JS agreement I am now under and I can work with this in mind but I was doing far more than my original JS agreement stipulated so for an SO to suddenly raise a query because she has been instructed to do so with everyone is surely moving the goalposts. I have appealed the decision but we are now stuck in a circular argument so I have asked my MP to look into the matter because I am not sure how I can reverse the decision even by demonstrating compliance to the new agreement.