35 hours a week for Jobsearch, not possible?

stix62

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Can't believe people moaning about having to do 35 hours job searching and how it's not possible. Those that want work would want to spend that much time or more ensuring they find it.

What a ridiculous statement.Why would anyone WANT to spend 35 hours per week or more job-seeking? They are 'ensuring' nothing, only the deluded would believe that.

There are jobseekers on these boards who claim to spend that much time or more jobseeking and try every avenue there is to find work but they're still unemployed. Why is that? They're putting the hours in and getting no where.

I wouldn't dream of knocking people for putting that amount of hours in (good luck to 'em), but if you take away time for interviews and job applications that require a good hour or two research and filling forms in (note: real jobs, not re-re-re-advertised agency rubbish), I've every chance of getting a job spending a fraction of the time they do.:D

AP007

donnajunkie wrote: »

but if you had to do 40 hours per week you would end up having no choice but to apply for anything to fill the time.

No it means 40 hours looking for work, like networking, sourcing company websites, joining them for job alerts, spec letters and CV's to such companies, searching as many websites as you can and then apply for as many jobs as you can in that time too.

MarkC1984

As part of my Jobseekers Agreement, I have to show 20 searches a week with 10 applications a week. Fine if there are actually that many vacancies around to apply for that I qualify for. Either lack of experience, no management experience, no driving licence, no forklift licence, etc.

sniggings

MarkC1984 wrote: »

As part of my Jobseekers Agreement, I have to show 20 searches a week with 10 applications a week. Fine if there are actually that many vacancies around to apply for that I qualify for. Either lack of experience, no management experience, no driving licence, no forklift licence, etc.

I think it is wrong that they set a number to apply for, when it's out of your control if there are 10 suitable jobs a week to apply for, you could get sanctioned for no fault of your own.

I wonder if anyone has ever refused to sign one of these "agreements" and what happens if you do?

Denning.

Do people actually not apply for roles just because they don't meet all the requirements? Like for real?

sniggings

Denning. wrote: »

Do people actually not apply for roles just because they don't meet all the requirements? Like for real?

depends what the requirement is of course.

If you have to have a car, or have a doormans licence etc etc then no I wouldn't apply for those, well I have to fulfill my quota but add in the application I do not have a car etc, so wasting their time and mine.

Most jobs now make it clear if something is good to have or is needed.

my point is, the rule is you are not meant to apply for anything you don't have a chance of getting, if we stuck to the rules then a lot of us would be getting sanctioned. as 10 jobs a week is not easy, week after week.

Denning.

sniggings wrote: »

depends what the requirement is of course.

If you have to have a car, or have a doormans licence etc etc then no I wouldn't apply for those, well I have to fulfill my quota but add in the application I do not have a car etc, so wasting their time and mine.

Most jobs now make it clear if something is good to have or is needed.

my point is, the rule is you are not meant to apply for anything you don't have a chance of getting, if we stuck to the rules then a lot of us would be getting sanctioned. as 10 jobs a week is not easy, week after week.

There is a difference between 'Must hold professional qualification' and 'Must have managerial experience'. Almost everyone can apply for the latter.

stix62

sniggings wrote: »

........
Most jobs now make it clear if something is good to have or is needed.
.......

Precisely. If an advert states a particular requirement as being 'Essential' or a 'Must have' it's pretty pointless applying if you don't, essentially, have them

If it says ..'Experience of... - ...would be advantageous although not essential', then it's game on.

sniggings

Denning. wrote: »

There is a difference between 'Must hold professional qualification' and 'Must have managerial experience'. Almost everyone can apply for the latter.

exactly, that what i said it depends what they are asking for.

If they were to ask for "must have held a managerial role for at least two years then no I wouldn't apply for that but if they said have managerial experience then I would apply for that one...tbh I would apply for both to fulfill my quota but as said it's wasting both our times.

sensibleadvice

stix62 wrote: »

What a ridiculous statement.Why would anyone WANT to spend 35 hours per week or more job-seeking? They are 'ensuring' nothing, only the deluded would believe that.

There are jobseekers on these boards who claim to spend that much time or more jobseeking and try every avenue there is to find work but they're still unemployed. Why is that? They're putting the hours in and getting no where.

I wouldn't dream of knocking people for putting that amount of hours in (good luck to 'em), but if you take away time for interviews and job applications that require a good hour or two research and filling forms in (note: real jobs, not re-re-re-advertised agency rubbish), I've every chance of getting a job spending a fraction of the time they do.:D

Because if they're on JSA, presumably they'd WANT to get a job. You only need look at the negative attitudes to job seeking and job seeking agreements to see why many are still unemployed. Out of interest how long have you been looking for work?