35 hours a week for Jobsearch, not possible?

imatt

To set a fixed arbitrary number of hours does seem like a numbers game, doesn't it?

It sort of reminds me when I did door-to-door sales and telesales years ago. It was often said that one in ten would always purchase. Of course, there were always variables such as the area / town, time of day, whether there was an important sporting event televised and so on. Sometimes a whole day could go with no leads / orders. Other times could see a dozen or more. In short, this suggested every street / road in every area visited was going to be alike irrespective five days a week.

Similarly, to suggest 35 hrs job search every week suggests that a jobseeker will ALWAYS find enough vacancies he or she is qualified to apply for, experienced enough to do and withing traveling distance. If a job involving driving is presented, should a jobseeker apply even though he cannot drive? Should a jobseeker apply for an IT role asking for knowledge of a particular program if she has had no experience of said application?

If the business is prepared to offer training in the latter example, then that's one thing. If not then applying for such vacancies will of course go towards fulfilling the 35hr requirement. But at considerable waste of time to both the jobseeker and the businesses involved.

silverwhistle

DJman wrote: »

That is 20 hours to complete 10 application forms. Yet the claimant only spent 3 hours looking for them. Which is more important?

Amen. Fortunately I'm not on benefits as I have other resources, but today I spent from late morning to after 5 doing a job application via one of the many, rather clunky, recruitment portals that exist for academic institutions. Technical problems filling in one section, and the software doesn't tell you what is missing [" a field not completed"..huh?], why you want the job: obviously that has to be tailored, and research needed. References have to be dated within a certain number of yers. Fair enough, but I've been working abroad and they didn't speak English.. And so it goes: time consuming and frustrating and still not finished...

Anyway, as no doubt you are aware, any 35 hour requirement is just punitive and not constructive.

donnajunkie

imatt wrote: »

To set a fixed arbitrary number of hours does seem like a numbers game, doesn't it?

It sort of reminds me when I did door-to-door sales and telesales years ago. It was often said that one in ten would always purchase. Of course, there were always variables such as the area / town, time of day, whether there was an important sporting event televised and so on. Sometimes a whole day could go with no leads / orders. Other times could see a dozen or more. In short, this suggested every street / road in every area visited was going to be alike irrespective five days a week.

Similarly, to suggest 35 hrs job search every week suggests that a jobseeker will ALWAYS find enough vacancies he or she is qualified to apply for, experienced enough to do and withing traveling distance. If a job involving driving is presented, should a jobseeker apply even though he cannot drive? Should a jobseeker apply for an IT role asking for knowledge of a particular program if she has had no experience of said application?

If the business is prepared to offer training in the latter example, then that's one thing. If not then applying for such vacancies will of course go towards fulfilling the 35hr requirement. But at considerable waste of time to both the jobseeker and the businesses involved.

any jobseeking activity can fill the 35 hours. it doesnt just have to be applying for jobs. as far as wasting time applying for unsuitable jobs goes. it doesnt have to waste that much time because you would obviously not put any effort into the application. if its on ujm and has an apply button its done in seconds.

sniggings

35 hours is daft, we all know it's just there so there can sanction people, you only have to be unemployed for a week and you would have covered all the businesses in your area within 40 miles, sending Cvs out etc.

It's just another rule there that is not designed to help but to beat the unemployed down with.

goonarmy

imatt wrote: »

To set a fixed arbitrary number of hours does seem like a numbers game, doesn't it?

It sort of reminds me when I did door-to-door sales and telesales years ago. It was often said that one in ten would always purchase. Of course, there were always variables such as the area / town, time of day, whether there was an important sporting event televised and so on. Sometimes a whole day could go with no leads / orders. Other times could see a dozen or more. In short, this suggested every street / road in every area visited was going to be alike irrespective five days a week.

Similarly, to suggest 35 hrs job search every week suggests that a jobseeker will ALWAYS find enough vacancies he or she is qualified to apply for, experienced enough to do and withing traveling distance. If a job involving driving is presented, should a jobseeker apply even though he cannot drive? Should a jobseeker apply for an IT role asking for knowledge of a particular program if she has had no experience of said application?

If the business is prepared to offer training in the latter example, then that's one thing. If not then applying for such vacancies will of course go towards fulfilling the 35hr requirement. But at considerable waste of time to both the jobseeker and the businesses involved.

Someone prepared to work will spend as much time as possible searching, exceeding the hours stated i expect.

imatt

donnajunkie wrote: »

any jobseeking activity can fill the 35 hours. it doesnt just have to be applying for jobs. as far as wasting time applying for unsuitable jobs goes. it doesnt have to waste that much time because you would obviously not put any effort into the application. if its on ujm and has an apply button its done in seconds.

Hmmm...you do have a point there. Did not fully consider that.

As far as wasting time is concerned, I was thinking about a particular business as much as the jobseeker.

Yes, a jobseeker may complete a job application in a minute or two. However, as a business owner or head of HR for Bloggs & Son, I would not like to sift through multiple applications half of which may be totally unsuitable. Such as someone in Newcastle (upon Tyne) applying for a vacancy posted on UJM paying just 10% above the NMW when the company is based in Portsmouth!

Affynity

The 35 hours is purely to serve as political candy that they dispense to gullible parts of the electorate.
If the unemployed are appearing to suffer, the squeezed middle will feel better about having a terrible existence and maybe won't gain a moment of clarity to notice that the wealth is, has it has always been, in the custody of an elite few.

I feel sorry for anybody in the benefits system, because the conditionality is just made up on the spot by whatever sociopath has found themselves at the better side of a desk at a jobcentre plus or the work programme.
My job is being a pain, I'm well educated and have a lot of work experience but I've only noticed two jobs that I could apply for in my local area, so I dread to think how bad it is for somebody in a worse off position...

goonarmy

Affynity wrote: »

My job is being a pain, I'm well educated and have a lot of work experience but I've only noticed two jobs that I could apply for in my local area, so I dread to think how bad it is for somebody in a worse off position...

Could you not spend that amount of time sending speculative applications?

Affynity

goonarmy wrote: »

Could you not spend that amount of time sending speculative applications?

No, because speculative applications are the most dramatically inefficient way of applying for jobs.
They're a wonderful scapegoat for people like the JCP and the work programme because they can pretend the labour market is stronger by whatever arbitrary amount they choose.

Try to remember that when we all paid our taxes to fund universal jobmatch, it was meant to effectively eliminate fallacies like hidden jobs, because there was no cost to the employer, regardless of how small their operation.

goonarmy

Affynity wrote: »

No, because speculative applications are the most dramatically inefficient way of applying for jobs.
They're a wonderful scapegoat for people like the JCP and the work programme because they can pretend the labour market is stronger by whatever arbitrary amount they choose

Well thats simply untrue. My current role was from a speculative application as was my first job in my line of work. ive also had applications turned down at the time but my details held on file and been contacted later when openings arose. And i did it out side the instructions of the JC as i was employed at the time.