apparantely advisor does not have to prove it

iammumtoone

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?

Because the poster was trying to point out that there may be 200 jobs but not all of them would be suitable, even the JC don't expect for example someone to apply for a role that involves driving if they don't have a licence.

With these threads we always seem to get the unemployed v the employed! Normally I respect what the employed posters have to say, they can and sometimes do contribute some good advise to threads.

However in this case I cannot understand where they are coming from. No one is saying the OP definitely does not deserve the sanction (that is not for any of us to decide). But I have yet to see anyone come up with a convincing argument why it is correct that the OP is not allowed to see this 'evidence' the JC have against them to allow them to defend themselves, their defense may or may not be judged as valid but surely they should have the right to put their point of view across.

AP007

iammumtoone wrote: »

Because the poster was trying to point out that there may be 200 jobs but not all of them would be suitable, even the JC don't expect for example someone to apply for a role that involves driving if they don't have a licence.

With these threads we always seem to get the unemployed v the employed! Normally I respect what the employed posters have to say, they can and sometimes do contribute some good advise to threads.

However in this case I cannot understand where they are coming from. No one is saying the OP definitely does not deserve the sanction (that is not for any of us to decide). But I have yet to see anyone come up with a convincing argument why it is correct that the OP is not allowed to see this 'evidence' the JC have against them to allow them to defend themselves, their defense may or may not be judged as valid but surely they should have the right to put their point of view across.

In the same way we as a job seeker have to produce a record of jobs applied for so should the JA for jobs not applied for. They can not say they have 200 jobs that the OP didnt apply for and then not prove it.

That itself regardless on the OP apply for 10 or 50 jobs makes no sense.

No sanction could be put in place unless the DM had a list of the jobs applied for to compare agaisn the ones not.

sensibleadvice

stix62 wrote: »

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

Hmm, let me see. Remember, like the OP this is about recording a search for a job you're likely not interested in and are already dismissive of.

Even the slowest and most incapable could achieve each of these in 5 minutes and someone who could use a computer to an average standard probably a couple of minutes per unsuitable job search.

1. Click into the job - 0 mins
2. Read the description - 2 mins
3. Comprehend - 1 min
4. Decide it's not appropriate - 1 min
5. Click the drop down box, select why not appropriate - 0 mins
6. Cut and paste details of Job summary including Job ID, Posting Date, Location and Job reference - 2 mins

Even a turnip realised the reason why OP is sanctioned is because they were not actively job seeking so it detracted from nothing and certainly not 'proper' job hunting otherwise they'd have presented that at their sign on. Curious how you forgot such a key point.

sensibleadvice

mro wrote: »

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 ?

1. They don't know it's not suitable until they've looked.
2. When they've looked they need to record it to evidence how actively they're looking.
3. It doesn't take that long if the post in unsuitable, if it's suitable the obviously worth the extra time on application
4. It's good practice to record applications anyway to monitor your own progress, follow up for feedback etc
5. You suggested 100's, in all probability JC would consider much fewer a reasonable effort to actively seek work
6. They aren't looking for a job, that's why they're sanctioned

sensibleadvice

stix62 wrote: »

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

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

7 options that 'could' lead to sanction. But then the sanction would be based on being selective...doesn't match my interests, too far from home (when it's within 90mins), not interested in this job etc...why shouldn't a job seeker apply?

And of course the 9th option of doing nothing that 'has' led to sanction.

sensibleadvice

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.

My area + 'warehouse' in the middle box. I warehouse because I work in logistics.

On the first page of 25 there are 5 apprentices, probably 10 or so agencies and others that look like companies. One quick google later I'm on the companies website with details of the same job and how to apply. No agency, just direct to the company...from an informed view on the first one I clicked. Looks like there's others on that page too but even at one per page that's 30 'proper jobs'.

I said warehouse because I work in logistics. Many jobs are low skilled but that's no reason for LT unemployed claimants like the OP not to apply for them.

OleGunnar

sensibleadvice wrote: »

My area + 'warehouse' in the middle box. I warehouse because I work in logistics.

On the first page of 25 there are 5 apprentices, probably 10 or so agencies and others that look like companies. One quick google later I'm on the companies website with details of the same job and how to apply. No agency, just direct to the company...from an informed view on the first one I clicked. Looks like there's others on that page too but even at one per page that's 30 'proper jobs'.

I said warehouse because I work in logistics. Many jobs are low skilled but that's no reason for LT unemployed claimants like the OP not to apply for them.

There's a problem with your search. The fact you typed your area is irrelevant unless you then click the box on the left that limits the search to 10 miles, 20. You also have pages listing jobs from literally months ago because you haven't clicked the box for todays jobs, yesterdays, this weeks etc.

Do you know where Tarporley is? I certainly don't. Anyway, I do your search of warehouse in the middle box, plus Manchester and on the first page I get job ID 6215926 in Tarporley. Google says Tarpoley is 35 miles from Manchester. Is that within 90 minutes on the bus?


You didn't search for jobs that have warehouse in the title. You searched for jobs that use the keyword "warehouse", this finds jobs either mentioned the keyword "warehouse" in the ad or in the key skills bit on the left of every advert.
Why is this a problem? Well if you search data entry in my area you'd get jobs that are lowish skilled that the OP could apply for?

That search for data entry gets you job id 5478826, a job in accounts requiring knowledge of Sage, a years experience and paying a salary of nearly 20K. I think that's a bit different to "data entry". The listing isn't erroneous because the job does require data entry but it's probably near the bottom of core competencies they want.


So what I'm trying to get at is the 200 jobs advisor probably did the exact same cursory glance, saw a figure and thought yeah, that's it without actually looking at what these jobs are. Why do I think this? They are reticent, outright obstructive in providing the evidence. I mean you've done the exact same thing when assuming 30 proper jobs on the basis of 1 a page, when infact, many are unsuitable for many reasons.

AP007

sensibleadvice wrote: »

1. They don't know it's not suitable until they've looked.
2. When they've looked they need to record it to evidence how actively they're looking.
3. It doesn't take that long if the post in unsuitable, if it's suitable the obviously worth the extra time on application
4. It's good practice to record applications anyway to monitor your own progress, follow up for feedback etc
5. You suggested 100's, in all probability JC would consider much fewer a reasonable effort to actively seek work
6. They aren't looking for a job, that's why they're sanctioned

I think you are assuming people only use and have been told to only use the UJM site

You do not need to record any job at all that you have not applied to.

If you think you have to we would all be recording 1000's of jobs each week surely.

OleGunnar

I was just sent an automated email from UJM about jobs that match my criteria. They send lots of these.

Problem with the first image: how many are remotely accessible to my location? Those that are, are apprenticeships that'd cost me money to do as I'd have to pay for the training.

View all 21,000 suitable jobs the link says. Can't even link one in the email. Is this the sort of software the 200 jobs advisor used to find the vacancies?

Problem with the second image. None are jobs, all are self employed vacancies.

sensibleadvice

OleGunnar wrote: »

There's a problem with your search. The fact you typed your area is irrelevant unless you then click the box on the left that limits the search to 10 miles, 20. You also have pages listing jobs from literally months ago because you haven't clicked the box for todays jobs, yesterdays, this weeks etc.

Do you know where Tarporley is? I certainly don't. Anyway, I do your search of warehouse in the middle box, plus Manchester and on the first page I get job ID 6215926 in Tarporley. Google says Tarpoley is 35 miles from Manchester. Is that within 90 minutes on the bus?


You didn't search for jobs that have warehouse in the title. You searched for jobs that use the keyword "warehouse", this finds jobs either mentioned the keyword "warehouse" in the ad or in the key skills bit on the left of every advert.
Why is this a problem? Well if you search data entry in my area you'd get jobs that are lowish skilled that the OP could apply for?

That search for data entry gets you job id 5478826, a job in accounts requiring knowledge of Sage, a years experience and paying a salary of nearly 20K. I think that's a bit different to "data entry". The listing isn't erroneous because the job does require data entry but it's probably near the bottom of core competencies they want.


So what I'm trying to get at is the 200 jobs advisor probably did the exact same cursory glance, saw a figure and thought yeah, that's it without actually looking at what these jobs are. Why do I think this? They are reticent, outright obstructive in providing the evidence. I mean you've done the exact same thing when assuming 30 proper jobs on the basis of 1 a page, when infact, many are unsuitable for many reasons.

I understand the notion of filters but thanks for the missive. The advisor likely matched against the claimants criteria which would include range, jobs added in last 14 days and probably several types of basic jobs, like cleaner, warehouse, retail, care etc or whatever matched their criteria.

Anyway it's irrelevant as the OP couldn't evidence they had actively sought work to a reasonable level and the UJM was indicative of what may be available had they looked.