apparantely advisor does not have to prove it

sensibleadvice

mro wrote: »

Unless you actually read & details of each job, you cannot know whether it is suitable.

The vast majority have requirements, hidden within the detail.

You cannot do a search on a job title. and know those jobs are suitable.

Do a google search you gets lots of junk, then you have read & sift it.


Do you know how long it takes to click on each of those 200 jobs & check the details ? :rotfl:

Yes, it takes a long long time & you can be certain the advisor has not done that.

It's the lazy way of the world & computer/internet searches, think that is the easy answer.

The advisor is likely spouting nonsense.

In which case OP would have done that, identified the jobs not suitable and presented a list to the advisor detailing jobs they sought but were not suitable with the reasons why.

OleGunnar

stix62 wrote: »

That figure is a joke. I was happy if I could find 1 a day (average). Not finding any one day was depressing, and finding 2 or more was 'kin amazing. Taking off the likes of searchjobvacancies and agency rubbish (who helped put my figures up on bad weeks it has to be said - so not totally useless ) there really isn't much left! - and that includes very basic no skills required type jobs.

Which is why I use UJM under duress but focus my efforts on using the likes of Reed, checking employer sites directly and to a lesser extent Indeed and the local paper. You'd hope the OP can prove they did this otherwise they'll be found bang to rights, irrespective of the fact the 200 jobs on UJM is a joke.

We all know UJM is useless for so many reasons, one example is the complete inability to interrogate your search results. Want to sift by salary (handy if you say want to see every sub £15K job, so basically NMW or a fraction above, in a 10 mile radius) on UJM. Err, no chance, unlike every other job site going.

Then again it took them 18 months to let you add a cover letter, so maybe sometime in 2056 will you be able to do this sort of thing.

stix62

sensibleadvice wrote: »

In which case OP would have done that, identified the jobs not suitable and presented a list to the advisor detailing jobs they sought but were not suitable with the reasons why.

Don't be a turnip all your life. How much time do you think that would take and detract from 'proper' job hunting?





I deleted my UJM account yesterday - it did feel good

mro

sensibleadvice wrote: »

In which case OP would have done that, identified the jobs not suitable and presented a list to the advisor detailing jobs they sought but were not suitable with the reasons why.

Why would they waste their time doing that, documenting why hundreds of jobs are not suitable.

Do you know time consuming that is, checking these jobs, then documentinhg why they are not suitable.

Are you mad ?


They are looking for a job !

Do you know time consuming that is ?

makeyourdaddyproud

mro wrote: »

Unless you actually read details of each job, you cannot know whether it is suitable.
The vast majority have requirements, hidden within the detail.

You cannot do a search on a job title. and know those jobs are suitable.

Do a google search you gets lots of junk, then you have to read & sift it.
This is real job search & it is time consuming.


Do you know how long it takes to click on each of those 200 jobs & check the details ? :rotfl:

Yes, it takes a long long time & you can be certain the advisor has not done that.

It's the lazy way of the world & computer/internet searches, thinking that is the easy answer.

The advisor is likely spouting nonsense.

Yes, and this simply means ignorant JC advisor will be pitted against the claimant who will simply apply for anything to get the numbers up. Is that a bad thing? Maybe.

At the end of the day, a citizen needs to be fed. If the government want to save money through frivolous sanctions then I'm behind anyone who will game the system only until they find a job suitable for them.

Ok, a likely scenario could emerge where a claimant could land a less than perfect job. Does the employer really, i mean really want an apathetic employee?

OleGunnar

sensibleadvice wrote: »

In which case OP would have done that, identified the jobs not suitable and presented a list to the advisor detailing jobs they sought but were not suitable with the reasons why.

Have you looked on UJM recently? That's one long !!! document if you're explaining why something isn't suitable.

Give it a go, search all vacancies posted yesterday within 10 miles of your postcode. Those parameters aren't too broad on say Reed, but try it on UJM. My postcode, on the first two pages so 50 results, gives 13 apprentice jobs (Improvement Team and Nat. Apprentice Service), 3 identical self employed Avon jobs with slightly different locations, the vast majority being CV Library and Monster (thus not tracked on UJM applications, are often days older than they first appeared on the original site, are often repeated) and literally a handful, sub 10, from actual employers.

Example, CV library job picked at random. UJM says it was posted yesterday (19th), click through and CV Library says it was listed the 16th. I can't post links but search for job id 6275206 on UJM.

What I especially like is how the site thinks Wigan is 10 miles from my postcode when Google says it's between 20 to 25 dependant on what motorway you use. Funnily enough Reed doesn't have this issue of massively mistaking the distance, nor do most websites I use, though they don't have an agenda to say there's X jobs in my area do they.

stix62

OleGunnar wrote: »

...search all vacancies posted yesterday within 10 miles of your postcode.....

When I search UJM it doesn't matter if I put 2 miles or 100 miles I get the same results. Does anyone else get that or is it just me?

Another thing it seems to do is distance areas 'as the crow flys'. There is a town which is a 32 mile drive from here, UJM doesn't take into account there is an Estuary in the way and says it's 8 miles.

sensibleadvice

OleGunnar wrote: »

Have you looked on UJM recently? That's one long !!! document if you're explaining why something isn't suitable.

Give it a go, search all vacancies posted yesterday within 10 miles of your postcode. Those parameters aren't too broad on say Reed, but try it on UJM. My postcode, on the first two pages so 50 results, gives 13 apprentice jobs (Improvement Team and Nat. Apprentice Service), 3 identical self employed Avon jobs with slightly different locations, the vast majority being CV Library and Monster (thus not tracked on UJM applications, are often days older than they first appeared on the original site, are often repeated) and literally a handful, sub 10, from actual employers.

Example, CV library job picked at random. UJM says it was posted yesterday (19th), click through and CV Library says it was listed the 16th. I can't post links but search for job id 6275206 on UJM.

What I especially like is how the site thinks Wigan is 10 miles from my postcode when Google says it's between 20 to 25 dependant on what motorway you use. Funnily enough Reed doesn't have this issue of massively mistaking the distance, nor do most websites I use, though they don't have an agenda to say there's X jobs in my area do they.

Sure there may be unsuitable and/or spurious jobs. Just clicked on my area and selected 'warehouse' as criteria. 749 jobs, some of which I recognise as genuine.

If they're not or there's a reason you don't want to apply there's a "Or, tell us why you don't wish to apply for this job." button. Simply click that, select the reason and record the Job title and ID to present to advisor. Takes a couple of minutes per job and gives a record of job seeking.

iammumtoone

sensibleadvice wrote: »

In which case OP would have done that, identified the jobs not suitable and presented a list to the advisor detailing jobs they sought but were not suitable with the reasons why.

But thats the whole point the OP or any claimant could have done this (OP hasn't said if they did or didn't) and it seems an adviser can say but you missed ?? (insert any figure you like) jobs and does not have to say what jobs they were. Leaving it open for a less than honest adviser to sanction anyone with the claimant not being allowed a defense.

A claimant can prove what they looked at but can't prove that there weren't others, surely you must agree it then leaves it to the adviser to prove there were others and what they were

stix62

sensibleadvice wrote: »

.

If they're not or there's a reason you don't want to apply there's a "Or, tell us why you don't wish to apply for this job." button. Simply click that, select the reason and record the Job title and ID to present to advisor. Takes a couple of minutes per job and gives a record of job seeking.

8 options - 7 of which 'can' lead to a sanction.

You'd have to be mad to allow access and allow that.