35 hours a week for Jobsearch, not possible?

DJman

Dear FBaby

Thank you for taking the time to write a critique of my posts. If any other members feel that my points are logically or factually flawed, please comment on them. If I am wrong, I will only come to appreciate this through well-argued and thoughtful feedback.

mro

FBaby wrote: »

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 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?


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.


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.



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.



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.

It's a complete fallacy to think imposing ridiculous infinite impossible to verify conditionality on poor, vulnerable, people living on the breadline will solve unemployment & get them a job.

Your examples about yourself are irrelevant as they do not apply to everybody.

People in work are doing a paid job & have rights.

That is your mistake in your understanding.

Macca83_2

gay_guy wrote: »

I read on Consumer action Group that a poster posted that she/he needs to do 35 hours Jobsearch a week, how is that possible?

There are hardly any Jobs, some jobs need driving licence (but what if people don't have any licence, do their still need to apply for that positon to avoid a sanction?)

Also what if jobs state need experience and some people haven't? do their need to apply for that position as well?

This goverment really is rubbish, also another poster state that if you can't provide 35 hours a week for jobsearch then you could loose JSA :mad:

How is this fair on true JSA claimants who are trying very hard to get into work?

The goverment should tackle cheats then true and honest claimants, and David Cameron said we are in this together, yeah right :mad:

Is this the same guy that started the thread about turning up to interviews in a t-shirt that said 'gay'

goonarmy

Macca83 wrote: »

Is this the same guy that started the thread about turning up to interviews in a t-shirt that said 'gay'

That thread was deleted. But yep.

madvixen

Macca83 wrote: »

Is this the same guy that started the thread about turning up to interviews in a t-shirt that said 'gay'

Indeed it is

prowla

donnajunkie wrote: »

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

I would've said so, and therefore it should be very easy to tot up 35 hours.

prowla

Macca83 wrote: »

Is this the same guy that started the thread about turning up to interviews in a t-shirt that said 'gay'

Oh - that was one of the top 4 amusing threads of the year, up there with the Subway meatballs one!:)

Macca83_2

prowla wrote: »

Oh - that was one of the top 4 amusing threads of the year, up there with the Subway meatballs one!:)

I take it that the thread just descended into chaos before it was deleted?

prowla

Macca83 wrote: »

I take it that the thread just descended into chaos before it was deleted?

Yes - I think it imploded and popped out of existence.

Macca83_2

prowla wrote: »

Yes - I think it imploded and popped out of existence.

The best threads always do!