35 hour a week work search is becoming difficult. How to not get sanctioned?

donnajunkie

gomer wrote: »

Try telling that to some of the people on this thread. If you went to college you wouldn't have to do a job search. You don't have to sign on either while you study. But some of them seem more interested in staying on jobseekers then in improving their own prospects of finding better jobs.

Frankly the attitudes I'm seeing here don't deserve anything better then a chip shop.

People worry they will be financially worse off going to college. Many also wont be confident about it. Also college can take a long time and many want to be working alot sooner.

donnajunkie

Farmer_Johnson wrote: »

Why not apply with a CV tailored to the job?

Is the aim here not to find a job? Why would people sabotage their chances like you suggest?

Perhaps they mean in relation to when they are struggling to fill the 35 hours.

donnajunkie

Farmer_Johnson wrote: »

The problem is that the attitude that you display here is toxic to your chances. The first priority should be getting a job, not “covering” yourself.

A lot of people who think like you will end up long term unemployed. I hope that you never find yourself out of work but thinking about appearing to do the right thing rather than just getting on and doing it places you at really high risk of losing your job and then struggling to find another.

What is sad is that I know people who think like you do who have been out of work for months and can’t see that it is their choice to be like this, not employers, job centre staff, or agencies, who stop them working.

Doing it as you say will result in a person being sanctioned, guaranteed. Survival is the number one priority for every living thing. Its not good that people have to think about covering themselves first but its because the system is setup to be a persons enemy.

JonVarnas

Farmer_Johnson wrote: »

Why not apply with a CV tailored to the job?

Is the aim here not to find a job? Why would people sabotage their chances like you suggest?

I've got a range of CV's tailored to different sectors and put the effort into jobs that I have a realistically have chance of getting but I always apply for at least 5-10 different jobs a day to cover my back in case anyone at the Jobcentre wants to be an !!!!!!.

35 hours a week job search is just stupid. It's an arbitrary number thought up by some civil servant who hasn't got the foggiest idea of what it's like at the lower paid and insecure end of the jobs market.

gomer

donnajunkie wrote: »

People worry they will be financially worse off going to college. Many also wont be confident about it. Also college can take a long time and many want to be working alot sooner.

All excuses.

You are not financially worse off going to college. They even pay all travel expenses. Your benefits remain the same.

Languishing on the dole with no qualifications can take a long time. Isn't it better to spend that time improving your work prospects?

If you are not confident enough for college then you have no hope in the job market. Going to college will give you confidence.

The problem is people just want to cling on to their job seekers allowance for dear life while doing as little as possible in return.

Like I said before, some people don't deserve any better than a job in a chip shop.

Some of the attitudes on this thread are astounding.

gomer

donnajunkie wrote: »

Doing it as you say will result in a person being sanctioned, guaranteed. Survival is the number one priority for every living thing. Its not good that people have to think about covering themselves first but its because the system is setup to be a persons enemy.

A system that offers completely free further education with no loss of benefits while you study in order to help you improve your future job prospects is set up to be a person's enemy? I've heard it all now.

The only enemy a lot of the people replying to this topic have is themselves.

One excuse after another. Some people deserve to be sanctioned.

Mr.Generous

donnajunkie wrote: »

How do you prove that. You need to check first that they will accept that. IF yes then yeah do it.

DJ, I think you come at this from a completely different viewpoint than I do.

My view is you are trying to find a job.

You think its about being able to claim indefinitely.

Mrs_Ryan

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Maybe because she can't afford or doesn't want a car.

I've always been poorly-paid and single and so have therefore never been able to afford a car (even if I wanted one). I managed - because I was living in a city and so therefore the vast majority of jobs I asked for were within walking distance of my home and the odd few that weren't had reasonable level public transport facilities to get to them.

Thankfully I'm now retired and, when I was working, I lived in a city. So for someone living in a city or reasonable size town - then it's certainly not reasonable for employers to expect an employee/would-be employee to cover the cost of having a car out of their own money unless (possibly) the work they are applying for is reasonably-paid career type jobs. For unskilled work or lower-level office work (ie NMW or not that much extra to that) then one can't afford a car basically. So it's either "old banger" type car and having to have the skills/know someone else well that does so to keep it on the road or forget about having one.

I dread to think how people living in more remote areas are supposed to cover the cost of having a car from their own money - and that when one adds that it basically costs more to live somewhere more remote in the first place (no free social events/possibly a dearer fuel bill etc).

I once went for an interview and the bloke interviewing me told me a car was the only reliable way to get to work. At the time, I was living in a flat overlooking the workplace. I pointed out to him that it would take me less than 5 minutes to get to work in the morning to which he said ‘oh well when there’s snow on the ground you won’t want to walk’ to which I pointed out it might take me a few minutes longer- maybe 10- but while cars can fail or get stuck on snowy roads my two legs could make it through still. He had no answer to that!

donnajunkie

JonVarnas wrote: »

I've got a range of CV's tailored to different sectors and put the effort into jobs that I have a realistically have chance of getting but I always apply for at least 5-10 different jobs a day to cover my back in case anyone at the Jobcentre wants to be an !!!!!!.

35 hours a week job search is just stupid. It's an arbitrary number thought up by some civil servant who hasn't got the foggiest idea of what it's like at the lower paid and insecure end of the jobs market.

You dont need to do 10 per day unless of course you find 10 worth applying for. 35 hours means 5 hours per day. One good application could take an hour or even longer, they often say they dont want people to just click the apply button and thats it, they want people to spend time perfecting their applications. So 5 or even less should be enough. Then if you include other tasks, reading local paper, social media etc you can fill your time for sure.

donnajunkie

gomer wrote: »

All excuses.

You are not financially worse off going to college. They even pay all travel expenses. Your benefits remain the same.

Languishing on the dole with no qualifications can take a long time. Isn't it better to spend that time improving your work prospects?

If you are not confident enough for college then you have no hope in the job market. Going to college will give you confidence.

The problem is people just want to cling on to their job seekers allowance for dear life while doing as little as possible in return.

Like I said before, some people don't deserve any better than a job in a chip shop.

Some of the attitudes on this thread are astounding.

You are choosing to jump to the worst conclusions about people. What benefit do you get while going to college? It cant be jsa as you arent available for and actively seeking work.