35 hours a week for Jobsearch, not possible?

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

would someone who meets the criteria not have those qualities?

Perhaps, perhaps not. The point is you seem rather dismissive of what a potential employer may consider and write off any chance of success in the process.

sensibleadvice

donnajunkie wrote: »

what the poster was saying in their post was that all without exception that struggle to find work arent really struggling to find work, they are just workshy.

You can't make the distinction between "those who don't want work" and "all without exception"?

sensibleadvice

sniggings wrote: »

a "target" implies you can miss it, it's not a target its a command, if you miss hitting it you get your JSA stopped for a month.

To compare having your benefit stopped for no fault of your own and a works target are not the same, if you fail to meet a jobs target the first time you are very unlikey to be sacked or have your full pay stopped for a month.

How long is it before DWP impose targets?

If you've been in work as long as some of those on JSA and fail to meet your job targets for such a duration you're very likely to be sacked.

sniggings

sensibleadvice wrote: »

How long is it before DWP impose targets?

If you've been in work as long as some of those on JSA and fail to meet your job targets for such a duration you're very likely to be sacked.

JSA is meant to be a safety net, to apply the same rules as those of work is daft and sounds like you have been listening to the tories spin too much.

sensibleadvice

sniggings wrote: »

JSA is meant to be a safety net, to apply the same rules as those of work is daft and sounds like you have been listening to the tories spin too much.

Safety nets aren't for staying in once they've done their job. Perhaps they're a little too safe and over protective when some have been caught in it for years?

stix62

sensibleadvice wrote: »

1)Safety nets aren't for staying in once they've done their job. 2)Perhaps they're a little too safe and over protective when some have been caught in it for years?

1)Unless I've got it wrong, JSA is what the govt have decided is the minimum amount you need to live on and the 'safety net' is them providing this UNTIL you find work and can support yourself. Once they've 'done their job' - ie: you find work and sign off - you wouldn't be staying in it.

2)No-ones going to deny there are those that play the system and have been 'caught in the net' because it's an easy life for them, but to most there is nothing safe about being unemployed. It's not the lifestyle many seem to think it is.

November5th

Well I signed on today (I sign off on Wednesday) and no discussion on the 40 hours (I just can't imagine how that would go). They were annoyed I did not give them access to my UJ account, just provided a screenshot.
When they asked why I did not give them access I said it was too insecure and you might force me to apply for very unsuitable/damaging jobs (CV Scrapers). She agreed that they would do that and we left it at stalemate.

It is now though a purely punitive system and is not about helping people into work at all, although I think they are still keen on shifting people onto self employed/working tax credits, judging by how empty this central London job centre is nowadays.

red_devil

Jobcentre are only there to make life hard, they do nothing to help you.
the work programme was friendlier. I dont see why the jc cant be like that.

donnajunkie

goonarmy wrote: »

Yes tax payers pay for it, thats correct.

no they dont cover an imposed extra cost. the amount the person gets stays the same. you do realise the money they get is to pay for things other than jobseeking also dont you? it is logical that if you increase what is required of a person then you must also increase what they are paid. otherwise they are going to do one of 2 things. they are either going to not pay a living cost and suffer the consequences or they are going to fake part of their evidence.

donnajunkie

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Exactly, quality applications take time. Cut, paste and standard attachments are hardly an effort.

If long term claimants have had no success it seems quite reasonable to have them quantify what they're doing to find work. If that means x job applications and hours per week so be it.

theres a flaw in your plan. you acknowledge that quality applications take time. so therefore you may only get 1 or 2 done in a day. try getting the jobcentre to believe it took you all day to do applications and see how far you get. it will be sanction time. it is clearly about quantity not quality as far as the 35 hour rule goes. if you had a clue about what you were talking about and werent a trolling daily mail reader you would know this.