35 hours a week for Jobsearch, not possible?

stix62

sensibleadvice wrote: »

... Out of interest how long have you been looking for work?

Since November 21st just gone.

I'm lucky though in that I'm expecting a phone call in April from my last employer to get me back in for this years season (agricultural casual worker) so at least I do have something to look forward to. It may not happen but at least there's some hope for me.
Of course the ironic thing about that is when I do go back into employment I will actually start getting more in benefits if you take into account child and working tax credits. Those who want to slag off the unemployed for costing the country too much need to think on a little

Denning.

stix62 wrote: »

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.

No. 'Essential' is pretty meaningless. You should apply for all jobs you are confident you can do, regardless of what the requirements state. I have applied and got job in which I no where near met the requirements. Perhaps they got no one who met the requirements? Maybe I convinced them at interview? Who knows.

sensibleadvice

stix62 wrote: »

Since November 21st just gone.

I'm lucky though in that I'm expecting a phone call in April from my last employer to get me back in for this years season (agricultural casual worker) so at least I do have something to look forward to. It may not happen but at least there's some hope for me.
Of course the ironic thing about that is when I do go back into employment I will actually start getting more in benefits if you take into account child and working tax credits. Those who want to slag off the unemployed for costing the country too much need to think on a little

The thread is about 35 hours job search and whether it's possible. Despite all the claims to the contrary it's quite possible and in fact most people who are determined to find work will do so in a relatively short period. Those who don't want work will always find excuses and blame the system.

Contrary to what some may say you've also shown it pays to work.

sensibleadvice

Denning. wrote: »

No. 'Essential' is pretty meaningless. You should apply for all jobs you are confident you can do, regardless of what the requirements state. I have applied and got job in which I no where near met the requirements. Perhaps they got no one who met the requirements? Maybe I convinced them at interview? Who knows.

Many employers would consider applicants who don't meet the full criteria if they demonstrate other qualities such as having initiative, determination, good work ethic etc. In some circumstances such qualities may outweigh essential criteria.

stix62

sensibleadvice wrote: »

The thread is about 35 hours job search and whether it's possible. Despite all the claims to the contrary it's quite possible and in fact most people who are determined to find work will do so in a relatively short period. Those who don't want work will always find excuses and blame the system.

Contrary to what some may say you've also shown it pays to work.

Yes, and for some it is, for some it isn't. Those for whom it is and those who think they know what's best despite not being in this situation need to drop the narcissistic attitude and stop trying to find fault with others. Because some people can't comply with their JSAg, for whatever reason, doesn't mean they're not determined to find work.

'Those who don't want work will always find excuses and blame the system.'
I can't argue with that, there will always be people happy to live on benefits all their life but, 'the system', isn't helping genuine jobseekers either. It is designed to be punitive. The government are fiddling the figures and trying to be seen as doing something.

'Contrary to what some may say you've also shown it pays to work.'
Of course it does, not just for the monetary reasons but also for your state of mind. It is good to have that 'routine' and feeling of job satisfaction in whatever form it may take. I got a lot of job satisfaction just by being out of 'the system'. What an amazing feeling not having to put up with all that nonsense for a while.(work program included)

KevInChester

Denning. wrote: »

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

I was once forced to apply for a role as a HGV driver (Job Seekers Direction) - despite the fact I:

Do not have a HGV licence
Do not have a driving licence

The advisor told me I had to apply anyway as and I quote "They might train you up"........ seriously, on what planet did the advisor think they'd train me up for this role?

I ended up sending in a spec letter for any potential vacancies I could do, figured I would win if they took it to a decision maker (thankfully never came to that).

AP007

KevInChester wrote: »

I was once forced to apply for a role as a HGV driver (Job Seekers Direction) - despite the fact I:

Do not have a HGV licence
Do not have a driving licence

The advisor told me I had to apply anyway as and I quote "They might train you up"........ seriously, on what planet did the advisor think they'd train me up for this role?

I ended up sending in a spec letter for any potential vacancies I could do, figured I would win if they took it to a decision maker (thankfully never came to that).

Yeah because learning to drive you can do one the job! LOL

sniggings

KevInChester wrote: »

I was once forced to apply for a role as a HGV driver (Job Seekers Direction) - despite the fact I:

Do not have a HGV licence
Do not have a driving licence

The advisor told me I had to apply anyway as and I quote "They might train you up"........ seriously, on what planet did the advisor think they'd train me up for this role?

I ended up sending in a spec letter for any potential vacancies I could do, figured I would win if they took it to a decision maker (thankfully never came to that).

Have you heard back yet, did you get the job?

DKLS

sniggings wrote: »

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?

As far as I understand its one of the hoops to jump through in order to still get JSA, and is it that bad to give a job seeking target?, after all there are many targets to be met in the workplace.


Is it that hard to find and apply for 10 jobs a week, I managed to apply for 4 jobs in the time it took me to have a dump this morning.

donnajunkie

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.

firstly its quality not quantity that should matter, you must work for dwp if you think otherwise. secondly no-one is criticising someone if they want to spend that much time doing it. its there being a rule requiring it. it is obviously there to make it easier to sanction. alot of jobseeking activities cost money. doing them for 35 hours will be more costly. who is going to cover the extra cost? you?