Universal Jobmatch created for sanctions

gay_guy

Anyone else think that the goverment like (Iain duncan smith) created Universal Jobmatch to make sanction on JSA easy?

I think so because there is quite a few traps like this one for example, when you look for a Job and it states the following: or, tell us why you don't wish to apply for this Job, and then people will click on any answer and if their click on the wrong one then that is a sanction done. (If the job is not suitable for me, I always click on the back button)

At the moment I haven't givin (Jobcentre) access yet but I am not going to until it becomes mandatory, I am just waiting until Jobcentre advisors force me to give them access then I am going to take action like complant to the manager, go to Citizen Advice.

I have got nothing to hide as I always apply for jobs but no way in hell I am giving them permission.

AP007

gay_guy wrote: »

Anyone else think that the goverment like (Iain duncan smith) created Universal Jobmatch to make sanction on JSA easy?

I think so because there is quite a few traps like this one for example, when you look for a Job and it states the following: or, tell us why you don't wish to apply for this Job, and then people will click on any answer and if their click on the wrong one then that is a sanction done. (If the job is not suitable for me, I always click on the back button)

At the moment I haven't givin (Jobcentre) access yet but I am not going to until it becomes mandatory, I am just waiting until Jobcentre advisors force me to give them access then I am going to take action like complant to the manager, go to Citizen Advice.

I have got nothing to hide as I always apply for jobs but no way in hell I am giving them permission.

No its not made to catch anyone out.

You do not need to give consent that's why there is a tick box

If it was legal for them to MAKE YOU give access there would be no tick box but instead a line like 'joining this service gives us the right to look at your account' and it don't and it wont.

You would only click why the job is not suitable in this instance
The JC have access to your account and are sending you jobs to apply for

gay_guy

AP007 wrote: »

No its not made to catch anyone out.

You do not need to give consent that's why there is a tick box

If it was legal for them to MAKE YOU give access there would be no tick box but instead a line like 'joining this service gives us the right to look at your account' and it don't and it wont.

You would only click why the job is not suitable in this instance
The JC have access to your account and are sending you jobs to apply for

Well Sorry I don't agree with you, a few people I know didn't know it was not mandatory and their got a sanction and had no money for a month. so yes it is a trap.

jacques_chirac

gay_guy wrote: »

Well Sorry I don't agree with you, a few people I know didn't know it was not mandatory and their got a sanction and had no money for a month. so yes it is a trap.

You will not get sanctioned if you ensure you do exactly what it states in your agreement. It is as simple as that.

RichardD1970

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA

Sorry couldn't resist.

AP007

gay_guy wrote: »

Well Sorry I don't agree with you, a few people I know didn't know it was not mandatory and their got a sanction and had no money for a month. so yes it is a trap.

So you are saying the person DIDNT know it was not mandatory to allow access?

And in giving access the advisor sent them a job and they say for example ticked 'this job is not for me'

Not very clever people I guess and I don't agree with you as you should know these things.

gay_guy

AP007 wrote: »

So you are saying the person DIDNT know it was not mandatory to allow access?

And in giving access the advisor sent them a job and they say for example ticked 'this job is not for me'

Not very clever people I guess and I don't agree with you as you should know these things.

No, The Jobcentre didn't send the person a Job, she found it while looking for Jobs and instead of clicking the back button, she click on the following (Job doesn't match my skills) (This is a part I am confused, you can't apply for a Job if you haven't got the right skill, it would be pointless and a waste of her time and employers time for applying but I guess Jobcentre couldn't care one bit)

And yes she didn't knew it was not mandatory.

AP007

gay_guy wrote: »

No, The Jobcentre didn't send the person a Job, she found it while looking for Jobs and instead of clicking the back button, she click on the following (Job doesn't match my skills) (This is a part I am confused, you can't apply for a Job if you haven't got the right skill, it would be pointless and a waste of her time and employers time for applying but I guess Jobcentre couldn't care one bit)

And yes she didn't knew it was not mandatory.

right so why was the person logged in?

This person must have given the JC access to their account so they saw this?

AP007

Oh yes and if the person didn't apply as the job did not match their skills they then print off a copy of the job and use it in their defence for the appeal.

Did they do this? I bet not

marybelle01

How many times are we going to have a variation of this debate? If the OP put as much energy into job-seeking as they do into starting a new thread on what is unfair about job-seeking every other day, they might be employed by now.

gay_guy

AP007 wrote: »

right so why was the person logged in?

This person must have given the JC access to their account so they saw this?

Read all my posts, I stated she give them access but she didn't knew it was not mandatory. can you read???