apparantely advisor does not have to prove it

OleGunnar

sensibleadvice wrote: »

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.

I like the use of the word some

How did you do this search from interest? You can't click warehouse under either job category or industry.

Did you type warehouse you mean? Doing so finds me just over 3 thousand jobs with that in the title on UJM. So there's a quarter of all warehouse jobs within 10 miles of your postcode posted in the last 48 hours? Really? Get the feeling you haven't used the same criteria for search.

Which reminds me, another brilliant UJM perk. What's 25 (jobs per page) multiplied by 40 (maximum pages per search)? I make it 1,000. So how do you view the last 2,000 jobs when it'll only display the first thousand?

AP007

sensibleadvice wrote: »

Imagine, say, 28 applications per fortnight as an expectation, that's 2/day on average and pretty easy to achieve in 2 weeks. The the JC convo:

JC - hello RD, can you evidence the jobs you've looked for in the last 2 weeks?

OP -

1. i found a few on day 1 and 2 then couldn't find any more
2. ummm, I could find that many
3. i applied for 28 on day one then had a rest
4. i was poorly and could get to a phone or computer

JC - just bear with me a mo. Ah, I see there's 200 jobs you could have applied for, I'm sorry RD I'm referring you for not actively and consistently seeking this period.

None of those excuses listed or indeed many other permutations support actively seeking work. Actively seeking work is about what the claimant can evidence they have done. That is where they failed and where they'll continue to fail presenting the same argument.

it has nothing to do with if you were ill one day or couldnt find any. The whole point is the JC say there were 200 that the OP never applied for, so where is the proof these jobs exsisted?

If the OP had just applied for 5 jobs in 2 weeks say they do not have to prove there were 200 jobs at all just that you didn't look hard enough.

So if the state a figure, get them to prove it - it is not hard to do surely.

AP007

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.

Are all these jobs on the one site? You dont have to prove the ones you never applied for, just the ones you did

If that's what you really think people should be doing there are 1355 jobs in London today that were posted on Reed. Should I have to look at 1355 jobs and write these all down? What aobut Monster, Jobsite, Totaljobs, Cityjobs, Caterer, Indeed etc etc etc?

OleGunnar

These 749 warehouse jobs. I live within distance of Trafford Park for it to appear (legitimately) on UJM which according to Wikipedia is the largest industrial estate in Europe. UJM finds 147 jobs with warehouse in the title within 10 miles of my postcode (so within Trafford Park and beyond) posted at any time. Just what did you search to get 749?

My listings:
-Overwhelmingly apprentice jobs
-Many requiring FLT licence, 7.5t licence etc, none of which I hold or will be able to get paid to train on by the Job Centre
- Many requiring night shifts that I literally couldn't get to or home from due to bus limitations
- A fair few that are Sunday only
- Jobs in Bolton- this isn't 10 miles from me but nearly 20
- Other unsuitable vacancies such as manager jobs that I am not qualified for


I don't dispute there are jobs I can (and have applied for), but you presumably said warehouse as it's low skilled and provides many results, yet the most cursory of glances reveals over 75% of jobs in my listings are unsuitable for me.

Bill_Shidding

OleGunnar wrote: »

yet the most cursory of glances reveals over 75% of jobs in my listings are unsuitable for me.

Hope you've written good reasons why you haven't applied for all of them!:D

badskindollheart

OleGunnar wrote: »

These 749 warehouse jobs. I live within distance of Trafford Park for it to appear (legitimately) on UJM which according to Wikipedia is the largest industrial estate in Europe. UJM finds 147 jobs with warehouse in the title within 10 miles of my postcode (so within Trafford Park and beyond) posted at any time. Just what did you search to get 749?

My listings:
-Overwhelmingly apprentice jobs
-Many requiring FLT licence, 7.5t licence etc, none of which I hold or will be able to get paid to train on by the Job Centre
- Many requiring night shifts that I literally couldn't get to or home from due to bus limitations
- A fair few that are Sunday only
- Jobs in Bolton- this isn't 10 miles from me but nearly 20
- Other unsuitable vacancies such as manager jobs that I am not qualified for


I don't dispute there are jobs I can (and have applied for), but you presumably said warehouse as it's low skilled and provides many results, yet the most cursory of glances reveals over 75% of jobs in my listings are unsuitable for me.

Instead of focusing on what you can't do, why not spend more time on what you can do? This is not just directed at OleGunnar; this thread is full of excuses about what people cannot do. Why are people wasting their time doing searches on UJM purely to prove how few jobs there are in warehouse work?

OleGunnar

Bill_Shidding wrote: »

Hope you've written good reasons why you haven't applied for all of them!:D

1. Bolton isn't within 90 minutes (the maximum they state) of my address.
2. My level 4 qualification means I'd have to not only work for effectively less than the dole on an apprenticeship, I'd also have to pay for the training and I think not even be eligible for a government training loan.
3. I don't have a FLT licence.
4. Well... you get the point.

Thankfully Mr Advice Man isn't my advisor though he could possibly work high up in the DWP with his punitive ideas,

Hell, he'd probably even win the Easter egg prize that was being offered to the Job Centre that came up with the most innovative sanctions.

Bill_Shidding

badskindollheart wrote: »

Instead of focusing on what you can't do, why not spend more time on what you can do?

Ahh, at last, logic prevails.

OleGunnar

badskindollheart wrote: »

Instead of focusing on what you can't do, why not spend more time on what you can do? This is not just directed at OleGunnar; this thread is full of excuses about what people cannot do. Why are people wasting their time doing searches on UJM purely to prove how few jobs there are in warehouse work?

Do you know what I did today?

3 hours voluntary work, a morning spent applying for jobs, some time doing the same after I got back. 5 applications on Reed, 2 on UJM, same on CV Library. Read the local paper as today is jobs day for it.

I saw my advisor on Monday, he complemented the search log- not because I applied for well beyond my target of steps (this is a given and has happened on every occasion I attend) but he was impressed by the fact I'd started a master list of statements for competencies that could be altered and transferred to application forms.

That OK? The point of a quick, cursory search of warehouse work was to backup my thought that his search wasn't accurate (like many of his posts), that this 200 jobs available on UJM is bunkum. Guessing you missed the bit where I said I use UJM under duress but rely on other sources?

badskindollheart

OleGunnar wrote: »

That OK?

Yeah, I suppose it's ok; job seeking in exchange for your job seekers allowance.