35 hours a week for Jobsearch, not possible?

goonarmy

Affynity wrote: »

The reason why they have a low success rate is because this idea that employers have this innate inability to advertise is ridiculous.erm like said, jobs have been filled without being advertised, trades use word of mouth etc. Do you not think a low success rate reflects a lack of oppotunities in the first instance?
And, the fact that you are essentially aiming without a target.
It's statistically unreasonable to expect it to have an effect.depends on the market, statistically.
I dunno, maybe those who champion speculative applications lead non-efficacious lives...
thats a silly statement and of course also not correct is it?
People also need to remember that because you might be unaware of a vacancy, doesn't mean it's hidden.it might also not have advertised yet or widely.

Your posts have very negative vibes. Im interested as to why? Some questions/statements in red

elle_may

Yes it's working. Some of the comments on this forum are playing into the goverments ploy of having us at each other's throats. DIVIDE AND CONQUER.

stix62

donnajunkie wrote: »

the relevant aspect here is its you must be willing to do and not you must apply for every job.

The full bullet pointed relevant section on a JSAg states:

I Know I may lose my jobseekers Allowance if I:
blah
blah
blah
. refuse, or fail to apply for, or do not accept a job that I am capable of doing, including one that I have been told about by my advisor.

To my understanding that means if you see a job you are capable of doing you MUST apply simply because if you don't it means you have failed to apply (they've got ya;) )

Whether you are willing or not doesn't even come into it.

donnajunkie

stix62 wrote: »

The full bullet pointed relevant section on a JSAg states:

I Know I may lose my jobseekers Allowance if I:
blah
blah
blah
. refuse, or fail to apply for, or do not accept a job that I am capable of doing, including one that I have been told about by my advisor.

To my understanding that means if you see a job you are capable of doing you MUST apply simply because if you don't it means you have failed to apply (they've got ya;) )

Whether you are willing or not doesn't even come into it.

yes, this applies to jobs you know about. so plucking a job out from somewhere that you havent applied for isnt good enough because you can say you havent seen it and are willing to apply for it. that is why this in main applies to jobs they have already told you about. it means you cant say i'm not applying for that. this is why they dont just print out job details for you and why they also register on the system that they have refered you for it. this enables a sanction to stand if you dont apply.

DJman

The Government would certainly be very pleased to learn that so many people here are arguing amongst themselves. Employed posters vs. unemployed posters, and - I dare say - unemployed posters against other unemployed posters.

The 35 hours a week job search conditionality has certainly become a hot button issue. However, those employed posters who suggest that the unemployed, as a group, should be doing this as a matter of course should bear something in mind. If they themselves ever become unemployed, it would be in their own best interests for all other claimants NOT to look for 35 hours a week. Because, in this scenario, they would be competing for a finite number of vacancies, and - all other things being equal - the only advantage a 35 hours p/w job search can possibly bring is if few people are doing so.

One does not need to consider the rights and wrongs of it. It simply has no value as a universal mandate.

donnajunkie

yes, people often get sent on courses that are about telling you how to get ahead of others when looking for work. the problem is everyone gets sent on these courses.

FBaby

Let's accept that there are more unemployed adults of working age than there are job vacancies. Notwithstanding those (few) claimants who genuinely don’t want to work, it follows, therefore, that unemployment is caused by a shortage of work and not because the unemployed don’t want to work

No, it doesn't follows therefore at all. What you would need to take into consideration is how many NEW JSA claimants there are vs how many new vacancies. Don't forget that not all new applications go to people on JSA, so more people will remain claimants even if there are more jobs than applicants. In theory, even if there are more applicants than jobs, it still follows that each week one is unemployed, his chance of getting a job is increasing statistically, that if of course not taking into consideration the different levels of employability of applicants.

Moreover, how many full-time employees actually work from the moment they arrive at work until the moment they leave? Excluding unpaid lunch breaks, how many employees have paid coffee or cigarette breaks? Moreover, how many employees talk to their colleagues about non-work related matters, such as the television, sport, holidays or their latest romantic escapades? Full-time employees are not paid to gossip with their colleagues in works' time and yet millions do. Moreover, how many take longer than necessary to perform a particular task, whether by accident or design? Although I acknowledge that some types of jobs, such as call centre customer service advisors or production line workers, lend themselves to non-stop work, I suspect that millions of full-time paid employees do not actually work for the entirety of the hours they are paid.

And who said that those spending 35 hours looking for a job are not allowed breaks or to chat with friends for a few minutes during their seatch?

And for those jobs where thereare periods of downtime - when there is nothing to do because of the normal ebb and flow of the week – employees still get paid.

And what about all those 35 hours paid jobs where people are unspokenly expected to work more like 50 hours? Or expected to perform the equivalent of 50 hours in 35?

To fill in an application form quickly is to fill it in badly, so let us say that it takes 2 hours to do one properly. That is 20 hours to complete 10 application forms. Yet the claimant only spent 3 hours looking for them. Which is more important?

It might take 2 hours to complete the first application, subsequent ones should much quicker because many of what would have been written should be transferrable to new applications.

It is unclear to me how somebody who is already working can be described as a scrounger. Moreover, these workers will be competing for the same jobs that unemployed people are applying for so where isthe value in that?

Really? They work the strict minimum hours whilst maximising benefits. Many of those working 16 hours do so because they choose to knowing that they won't be that much worse off doing so and claiming tax credits. I have seen many people asking managers in my organisation if they could cut down their hours to the magical '16 hours' when they start having more children and can claim tax credits when they were previously working full-time. Competition is good, makes people work harder.

Finally, if spending 35 hours a week looking for work has any tangible benefit, it is because it gives you an advantage over those who don’t spend 35 hours a week looking for work

35 hours is a number because that is the most logical hours. Personally, I have spent many hours looking and applying for job when I was already working full-time. I have been unemployed once and I didn't calculate how long I was spending, but I am pretty certain it wasmore than 35 hours if taking everything into account.

The actual act of searching will not magically create employment and so a universal mandate of 35 hours a week will achieve nothing. Anybody who claims to spend this amount of time looking for work, but who is still unemployed after a few weeks, is evidence of this.

Evidence? What about those who spend hours sending over and over CVs that wouldn't make anyone want to employ them because of all the spelling mistakes? Those who can't be bothered to include a cover letter? Or those who do application forms but can't be bothered to write anything under the statement for purpose? If you do the same poor job over and over, you are in no way increasing your chances of getting a job.

prowla

Does training & ensuring you skills are up to date count as part of the 35 hours?

donnajunkie

prowla wrote: »

Does training & ensuring you skills are up to date count as part of the 35 hours?

yes if job related or if it helps improve your chances of getting a job.

goonarmy

DJman wrote: »

The Government would certainly be very pleased to learn that so many people here are arguing amongst themselves. Employed posters vs. unemployed posters, and - I dare say - unemployed posters against other unemployed posters.

The 35 hours a week job search conditionality has certainly become a hot button issue. However, those employed posters who suggest that the unemployed, as a group, should be doing this as a matter of course should bear something in mind. If they themselves ever become unemployed, it would be in their own best interests for all other claimants NOT to look for 35 hours a week. Because, in this scenario, they would be competing for a finite number of vacancies, and - all other things being equal - the only advantage a 35 hours p/w job search can possibly bring is if few people are doing so.

One does not need to consider the rights and wrongs of it. It simply has no value as a universal mandate.

elle_may wrote: »

Yes it's working. Some of the comments on this forum are playing into the goverments ploy of having us at each other's throats. DIVIDE AND CONQUER.

Wow, just wow.