Looks like my partner will be sanctioned?

Voyager2002

Funky_Bold_Ribena wrote: »

You think demanding access to someone's private emails is doing their job properly? Really?

Except that JC advisers have to operate within the law and the regulations that govern their work. They do not even have the power to make you tick the box that gives them access to UJM: they certainly do not have the power to demand access to a client's email account.

I have to say, I find this part of the story hard to believe. Not long ago I wanted to show my JC adviser something in my email account, and they were unable to log on to it. So I think that there is some misunderstanding here.

GamerInfo

makeyourdaddyproud wrote: »

Yes, it's all very tasteless and unprofessional on the JC's part but the objective here is to make it extremely uncomfortable to claim benefit, ergo I think the adviser is doing her job properly.

The more these tactics are applied the more likely claimants are to find working (even with less money) at lot less hassle.

It's no secret that a lot of despondent jobseekers are starting to get very comfortable on the dole when there's few jobs: a see a lot of youths happier pushing prams with tracksuits smiling when they should be actively working or at least searching for work.

It's a no brainer to see that the increasing number of frivolous sanctions meted out does cut down the benefit bill, as there is less to pay out.

Put up with it, because it will get worse.

The next step is a gov imposed manual workfare agreement - no need for pathetic job search diaries!

Maybe it might cut down on the number of expensive iPhones and bling paraded in job centres.

Yes, it is unpalatable. But at least you have eBay to sell your useless gadgets when you are caught with the inevitable sanction.

The situation i have explained in my OP is no where near then 'doing their job' and i certainly do not believe we should sit back and take everything they've said and demanded of us....

Telling my partner the decision to take a job that would see us worse off was entirely up to him, only to find out a week later that they are sending this off to a decision maker as they are now saying he would not have been told it's his decision? that is underhand, sneaky and not true, of course we are not going to sit back and allow that to happen, just like anything else in life, if you were being accused of something you didn't do you wouldnt just sit back and take it? you'd defend yourself surely?

Asking for my private email account for them to browse is not someone doing their job, telling my partner he has to locate every single employer (most of whom do not display an address on the UJM and specifically state email applications only) and hand them a paper copy of his cv is silly.

Making people feel like they are worthless week after week is not going to prompt them in to getting a job - quite the opposite, how on earth can they be confident in an interview?

I really have no idea where you get the image of someone claiming JSA must be tracksuit wearing people pushing push chairs and flashing their iphone and bling around?

My partner does the incredibly stupid things the jobcenter tells him because he wants to work....and he tries his dammed hardest to get that single interview or even an acknowledgement.

It's quite funny you say they are making it uncomfortable for people to be claiming because the adviser my partner saw to sign on the week after his first interview asked how it went? My partner explained the barrage of insults he received to which the guy signing him on said they are only tough with people they know can work, those who simply have no interest in finding work they have no time for - something wrong with that picture? Surely those actively seeking work should not be held to ransom while those who 'play, cheat and put the v's up' at the system should be the ones receiving a hard time?

Nightranger

Voyager2002 wrote: »

I have to say, I find this part of the story hard to believe. Not long ago I wanted to show my JC adviser something in my email account, and they were unable to log on to it. So I think that there is some misunderstanding here.

Sadly, I see no reason to doubt this story. I ended up with a sanction a few months ago generated not by my usual adviser under circumstances that suggested there was an office exercise to raise sanction numbers towards a quota level. I overheard the conversations this woman had with other clients and she changed her approach to suit each one. I tried to appeal the decision but the LMD have put obstacles in the way at every turn and according to their account, the adviser lied about the meeting anyway. Even my local MP cannot get any sense out of them. The chap before me had only applied for one job in two weeks so I guess it was fair enough but I had applied for 12 despite my agreement at the time being for just three per week (it has been changed since and I have no problem with knowing where I stand even if it is a trap to snag me some time in the future). This woman even changed tack when I pointed out that her claim that I had not met my agreed activities was wrong. She even said (this is priceless) that I had 'applied for too many science jobs' (I have a science degree and much of my work experience is science-related).

I am afraid that Cameron's righteous attitude to control those with a benefits mentality is actually snaring those who are just caught up in the poor financial situation the country is in. As the recovery takes hold and more of us find our way back into employment in the next year, I am predicting some massive problems for the JC.

GamerInfo

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Except that JC advisers have to operate within the law and the regulations that govern their work. They do not even have the power to make you tick the box that gives them access to UJM: they certainly do not have the power to demand access to a client's email account.

I have to say, I find this part of the story hard to believe. Not long ago I wanted to show my JC adviser something in my email account, and they were unable to log on to it. So I think that there is some misunderstanding here.

No misunderstanding - when i called the jobcenter the day after to ask if this is correct i was told in a not so nice way that if that is what the JC adviser wants then my partner must do it!!! when i said 'so you are demanding access to look through our private and shared email account' and she said if that will prove you've applied for the jobs then what is the problem?

She said part of your agreement is to prove you have applied for the jobs you say and if the only proof you can give is via your email account then so be it!!!!

In terms of UJM, my partner applies for job using both the direct apply button which is displayed immediately within the application history, but for those jobs that take him off site he has to manually input this information in to the active history. They have no interest in what's written within the application history and he hits his 6 jobs per week within that section.

At the end of the day while my partner only has to do 6 jobs per week he's showing initiative and desperately trying to apply for as many jobs as he can to increase his chances of finding employment.

My partner has no need to lie - i sit next to him daily watching him spending hours via that site and others looking for employment

GamerInfo

krok wrote: »

As i have said on other threads.

Do not give them access to your ujm account. It is a sanction trap.

On your ujm make sure you apply to the minimum jobs your adviser says by only using the apply button. I know there are not many as they do tend to take you to other sites. It doesnt matter what job it is just find them, and then you will have proof on your ujm that you have applied to the jobs.

Do not be bullied and make sure you know the rules so you can play by them. Those are the dwp words at the pcs conferance, not mine lol.

You cannot apply for jobs that you are not qualified for - doing so will get you a sanction. In amongst the 30 odd jobs detailed the adviser he saw the other day picked one out that at the very end of the job details had a requirement for a certificate my partner didn't hold. Fair enough it was an oversight on my partners side but he was told off for doing that and repeatedly asked why he applied for a job he doesn't hold the relevant qualifications for - he was told he does that again and he will be sanctioned.

You cannot just apply for anything....

Nightranger

GamerInfo wrote: »

Asking for my private email account for them to browse is not someone doing their job, telling my partner he has to locate every single employer (most of whom do not display an address on the UJM and specifically state email applications only) and hand them a paper copy of his cv is silly.

Absolutely, the JC know that a substantial number of jobs are applied for online so potentially if you do not produce evidence of this (depending on the employers system, this is not always easy) they could accuse you of lying and still issue a sanction. The JC system has become a messy minefield and geared to catch the unwary. If that fails, they will place the bomb under you by hand. Some JC staff are intelligent enough to realise this state of affairs won't last forever - things will get better - I have no sympathy for the others they are coalition puppies and they will probably be treated as mugs once we get through all this.

Funky_Bold_Ribena

GamerInfo wrote: »

You cannot apply for jobs that you are not qualified for - doing so will get you a sanction. In amongst the 30 odd jobs detailed the adviser he saw the other day picked one out that at the very end of the job details had a requirement for a certificate my partner didn't hold. Fair enough it was an oversight on my partners side but he was told off for doing that and repeatedly asked why he applied for a job he doesn't hold the relevant qualifications for - he was told he does that again and he will be sanctioned.

You cannot just apply for anything....

Really?

Is this person really an employee of the Job Centre?

I think given the circumstances of his situation, he needs to ask for the rules as they seem to be interpreted by a mad person here.

Find out what he needs to do, what evidence is required to prove it and just do that each time. No more.

Nightranger

GamerInfo wrote: »

You cannot apply for jobs that you are not qualified for - doing so will get you a sanction. In amongst the 30 odd jobs detailed the adviser he saw the other day picked one out that at the very end of the job details had a requirement for a certificate my partner didn't hold. Fair enough it was an oversight on my partners side but he was told off for doing that and repeatedly asked why he applied for a job he doesn't hold the relevant qualifications for - he was told he does that again and he will be sanctioned.

You cannot just apply for anything....

I have to disagree on this one...you can apply for anything, even a Brain Surgeon job. Personally, I think it is bad practise to do so because you are reducing the chances for someone who may have experience and/or the qualifications. I have mentioned this elsewhere but it has become a numbers game, especially for anyone with specific experience and/or education (younger graduates are struggling but in special cases they will find it easier generally but that is for another discussion). The field that in theory should produce the greatest chances of me getting back to work would be school science technician roles. Unfortunately, they are mostly advertised with only basic educational requirements meaning that anyone can apply for the job if they completed secondary school education. I have a science degree and I worked in that role for something like 11 years out of my career. However, if 200 people apply for the job and they are only going to interview eight maximum, they will stop reading when they have those eight and bully for anyone whose application is further down the pile. A scattergun approach to job applications is probably one of the least effective strategies for any individual but it seems that the JC are the only ones who cannot work this out.

makeyourdaddyproud

Nightranger wrote: »

Absolutely, the JC know that a substantial number of jobs are applied for online so potentially if you do not produce evidence of this (depending on the employers system, this is not always easy) they could accuse you of lying and still issue a sanction. The JC system has become a messy minefield and geared to catch the unwary. If that fails, they will place the bomb under you by hand. Some JC staff are intelligent enough to realise this state of affairs won't last forever - things will get better - I have no sympathy for the others they are coalition puppies and they will probably be treated as mugs once we get through all this.

Isn't that the point though? To deliberately have a system that is both unwieldy and confusing works for us all to deter comfort and prediction in the system thus freeing up much needed benefit for other ... well ... newly arrived foreign claimants.

I think the system is almost right in its ambitions, save for the thumbscrews on the JC's desk.

We're not quite at the point yet where its just too much hassle to sign on, but we're getting there.

GamerInfo

Funky_Bold_Ribena wrote: »

Really?

Is this person really an employee of the Job Centre?

I think given the circumstances of his situation, he needs to ask for the rules as they seem to be interpreted by a mad person here.

Find out what he needs to do, what evidence is required to prove it and just do that each time. No more.

In black and white the whole situation looks pretty un-believable, but everything ive said was confirmed by the person i spoke to on the phone - there was me thinking it's was just the one adviser who'd gone completely bonkers, but turns out they are all the same, what they say goes......

my partner is going to make his UJM private and still apply for the same amount of jobs he's does now, but write down the required 6 jobs per week on a sheet giving as much info as possible.

I will ask him to get everything in writing from now on, he needs to be clear on his obligations and just stick to these where the jobcenter in concerned.