35 hours a week for Jobsearch, not possible?

iammumtoone

stix62 wrote: »

In 'the good old days' it was exactly that. When you signed it was just to say you hadn't been working at all for the past fortnight. A quick in and out - no inquisition.

I think that is what the problem is, I don't know what it was like previously i have only know the 'sanction' culture. I have been told by others that people would actually get paid extra for going on a job seekers course etc:eek:

I agree that it sounds like the old system was too lenient and something needed to be done, however they seem to have gone completely the other way and made a system with no room for genuine error where claimants are so frightened of getting a sanction for the smallest thing.

stix62

AP007 wrote: »

No wonder people had a great time on it then.

Let's be honest here, unless you are claiming when you shouldn't be or partaking in illegal activities and have an additional 'income' (for want of a better word) you're never going to have a great time on benefits - the money sux!
It's no where near what you 'need to live on'. It's no life at all.

sensibleadvice

AP007 wrote: »

I think now its more on an emphasis on the word job seeking as I have no idea if when it was called something else you had to prove you were actually 'jobseeking' as I have never been out of work before.

As stated its the amount the Gov say you need to live on, not look for work with.

They care not if you have a phone line or internet (job seeking tools) that's your problem if you don't.

I expect most would have such tools, if only to connect to games consoles etc.

If not facilities can be made available if requested. Or libraries. Or friends etc. Point is there are options for those determined to find work.

stix62

iammumtoone wrote: »

..
I agree that it sounds like the old system was too lenient and something needed to be done, however they seem to have gone completely the other way and made a system with no room for genuine error where claimants are so frightened of getting a sanction for the smallest thing.

Totally agree.
It's an ensnare all to ensure they get the bad guys attitude.

goonarmy

donnajunkie wrote: »

what are you saying? that it is to be spent solely on jobseeking?

Where did it say that? And job seeking is pretty cheap.

sensibleadvice

mro wrote: »

For what jobs ?

Distribution, pick/pack, stores, warehousing, cleaning, construction all at various levels from shop floor or frontline upwards. This is especially true of agency workers, jobs which may start as temporary but often lead to permanent opportunities if the applicant proves themselves.

AP007

goonarmy wrote: »

Where did it say that? And job seeking is pretty cheap.

Not if you include the price of internet and a phone line at home. Electricity you wouldn't be using if at work and wear and tear on your laptop etc.

sensibleadvice

mro wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not.

What is this advice based on ?

It's pretty obvious that someone who is 3, 6, 9, 12 months unemployed is at a disadvantage and got problems finding a job which could be related to any number of issues.

You've missed out, job availability, supply demand of jobs & candidates, prejudice on employer side.

Based on my observations from mine and associates experience all of whom have applied for and found work, found new jobs when circumstances changed. Based on mine and associates observations of applicants, applications, CV's, interviews, agencies etc.

OK, 3 months out of work looking for desired role, push to 6 months if there are signs of success, i.e. interviews final sifts etc. Beyond 6 months it's time to consider any positions, wider areas etc. At 9 months with no success they should be looking at what they're doing wrong if they're not getting some interviews and positive responses. At 12 months any and all options including work program, universal job match, support from DWP in advising on jobs to apply for, how long to spend applying etc because at that stage such things are necessary after 12 months without success.

Sorry, job availability is an excuse, there's always people moving in and out of jobs and how do you think some find work in the short term ahead of those long term. Do they jump the queue, no they show work ethic, initiative, and present their skills and experience positively. Those types will always find work.

sensibleadvice

stix62 wrote: »

In 'the good old days' it was exactly that. When you signed it was just to say you hadn't been working at all for the past fortnight. A quick in and out - no inquisition.

Hence the need to change it.

sensibleadvice

stix62 wrote: »

Let's be honest here, unless you are claiming when you shouldn't be or partaking in illegal activities and have an additional 'income' (for want of a better word) you're never going to have a great time on benefits - the money sux!
It's no where near what you 'need to live on'. It's no life at all.

Indeed, if truth were known it would probably be quite revealing how many partake in those other activities to support their state money and how job seeking could be inconvenient to these. When it's no life and sux people sort themselves a better life via a job.