Providing proof of jobsearch, JSA.

Dole_Scrounger

Sharon87 wrote: »

On the UJM website there is a drop down menu giving reasons why you don't think a job is suitable. Out of curiosity I went to see if there was my job in TV on there. There was a similar job - bookings coordinator in a camera hire place. I just chose 'don't have the required skills' or something like that. So if you do search for a job and find that you can't do that job for whatever reason they give you options to why it's not suitable.

Yes... I am aware of this feature!
My point is that JC+ only have this feature because they want to be able to scrutinise our reasons for NOT applying for that job. But they can only do this if they have access to our UJM accounts. If we click on and view a jobs details we are showing an interest in that job. Once we have done this we are expected to apply for that job. If we don't, they want to know why. It is purely subjective as to whether we are being reasonable in not applying for that job. One JC+ staff member may agree with our reasons, but another (who perhaps didn't get laid the night before) might take a dimmer view, and start the sanction process. This has happened to me before.

I think you're being very cynical.:eek: Whenever I have to sign on I just try to chat to the advisor and be friendly, especially on my first sign on.

I am always polite to there staff, even when I am angry!

I find that if you appear friendly the advisor is more likely to be happy and not give you a hard time (well most of the time anyway).

What... Just most of the time?

If you go in and say 'I'm not giving you access' and either act like you don't want to work or act like you're above going into the job centre the advisor will want to sanction you, not because you've not followed the agreement, but because of how you act towards them.

Are they permitted to give us a hard time just because they don't like us, or our attitude, or because we want to defend our rights?

I'm not saying the OP does this, just an observation from when I've been signing on. The privacy in there is non existent, you can hear everything the nearest advisor and job seeker is saying when sat on the sofas!

What does OP mean? (I hate acronyms)

Flyonthewall

Dole_Scrounger wrote: »

What does OP mean? (I hate acronyms)

OP means Original Post or Original Poster.

Flyonthewall

Sharon87 wrote: »

I think you're being very cynical. Whenever I have to sign on I just try to chat to the advisor and be friendly, especially on my first sign on. I find that if you appear friendly the advisor is more likely to be happy and not give you a hard time (well most of the time anyway). If you go in and say 'I'm not giving you access' and either act like you don't want to work or act like you're above going into the job centre the advisor will want to sanction you, not because you've not followed the agreement, but because of how you act towards them.

How you act makes no difference to some. I had an WP advisor who tried 2 or 3 times to sanction me for stupid reasons that contridicted each other and I was polite to them. They didn't like the fact that I knew what I was doing and that I had better English (they wrote my cover letter and then rewrote parts after I read and noticed numerous mistakes. Sad part is I could have typed it faster too!)

I'm not saying the OP does this, just an observation from when I've been signing on. The privacy in there is non existent, you can hear everything the nearest advisor and job seeker is saying when sat on the sofas!

Yeah. Like "are you sure you want to go for the interview? You don't have to. So you're sure?" The guy had already said yes and was clearly willing before she'd even finished the sentence about the interview she could get him! I think it was basically a guaranteed job almost so long as he could show he was capable and didn't mess up the interview completely as I think the company were working with the JC to get people and had, I think, arrange for some many interviews to take place and the JC were to fill them places.

So yeah, be polite, they may even try and talk you out a job if they really like you :rotfl:

Dole_Scrounger wrote: »

Thanks again to Flyonthewall for all your info.:A

To other posters who may have misunderstood the reasons for my questions, I say this::(

I do a lot of self employed work fixing computers and other things like selling stuff on ebay etc most of the year. I only sign on for about 2-3 months of the year to supplement my income, usually around Christmas time because there are more temp jobs around at that time of year.

No problem

Sounds a lot of hassle. Is there nothing you could sell to boost income during that time?

In all the time I have been signing on and off the dole I have always done everything I can do to find and apply for jobs. I have always provided as much proof of my job search as is possible, using email prints etc. But every time I have been to a restart interview or similar, and every time I have signed on, I have taken a folder sometimes an inch thick with job applications, every one verifiable. Not once did a JC+ staff member even look at these applications, or record them on their computer system. On one occasion a female staff member accused me of not applying for any jobs. When I showed her the folder of jobs, she refused to even open it.:eek:

Yeah, sadly that sounds about right. They either don't care at all, they find fault regardless or they expect loads. If dealing with one advisor you know how it is at least, but if you have different advisors you never know which it'll be.

I have always suspected that JC+ never really cared about what I WAS doing to find a job, because this is not sanction-able.

They only seem to care about what they think I am NOT doing to find a job, because that is sanction-able. This may seem cynical, but it is just what my instincts tell me.

Anything is sanction-able. That doesn't mean you can't appeal and win, but if they want to sanction you for something (or nothing) they will.

Even if it's because you didn't do something illegal like using a phone while driving to tell them you'll be a few minutes late. That wasn't even the only issue. I won the appeal lol.

This is why I refused to give them access to my UJM account. They would almost certainly use any jobs that I looked at, but did not apply for, to sanction my JSA. The reasons for not applying for a job, such as a health condition etc, are of NO concern to JC+ in my personal experience. Give some people an inch, and they will take a yard.

Exactly. I agree.

andygb

red_devil wrote: »

don't give them access. You can write your jobs in your booklet or on a piece of paper and ask them to copy it.

Neither of us were given a booklet, we were TOLD to use UJM instead.
As I said in an earlier post, all you need to do is have two browsers (maybe a third for your email confirmations) open, and toggle between other sites such as Reed, Totaljobs etc. copying and pasting details into the activity history of UJM. I also keep copies of email application confirmations - my advisor looks totally p****d off with me when I plonk them down in front of her:D

Flyonthewall

andygb wrote: »

Neither of us were given a booklet, we were TOLD to use UJM instead.
As I said in an earlier post, all you need to do is have two browsers (maybe a third for your email confirmations) open, and toggle between other sites such as Reed, Totaljobs etc. copying and pasting details into the activity history of UJM. I also keep copies of email application confirmations - my advisor looks totally p****d off with me when I plonk them down in front of her:D

I used one browser just for all job stuff, including email (my email was for job stuff only too). Then you just open different tabs for each job site and email and switch between them. No need to use more than one browser.

Easier if you stick to just one browser anyway. It means tracking cookies can't possibly be tracking anything other than the job stuff you're doing on that one browser. So you're free to use other browsers for what you wish. While they shouldn't be tracking other things you just never know.

topaztiger1983

If you guys want to find gainful employment, have you thought about doing voluntary work for a bit,it helped me and now I have been employed for nearly 15 months, after being unemployed for 3 years, so it can work (I only did one day a week voluntary, due to JCP wanting me to do some courses and stuff)

So give voluntary work a shot

topaztiger1983

Also I gave JCP access to my UJM account and it never did me any harm

Dole_Scrounger

Just a thought, but it's probably a good idea to delete cookies before going into UJM site. Especially if you have been posting on MSE forums or similar. You don't want the b*stards to know what you've been discussing!

Dole_Scrounger

topaztiger1983 wrote: »

If you guys want to find gainful employment, have you thought about doing voluntary work for a bit,it helped me and now I have been employed for nearly 15 months, after being unemployed for 3 years, so it can work (I only did one day a week voluntary, due to JCP wanting me to do some courses and stuff)

So give voluntary work a shot

I'm glad it worked for you topaztiger1983 (no pun intended!).
Voluntary work in a chosen area can help with long term unemployment situations, where you need to brush up on your skills etc. The hard part is you keeping control of the situation.

But voluntary activities can be a problem for some people. Once you have shown willing, JC+ will sometimes expect you to do more. If you refuse it may be a sanction-able offence.

JC+ will in time offer you plenty of unpaid work offers, such as the Work Program, but if you refuse these, you will definitely be sanctioned.:mad:

topaztiger1983

the possible chances surely outweigh the risk of JCP making you do work programme