Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kendal mint cake

The Why Don't You Get a Job Thread

Recommended Posts

Do people fail to grasp that we're subsidising private businesses or don't they care & are just clouded as soon as 'benefits' is mentioned.

Yep. Look how many times they use the word "workshy" is used in the article Mike posted, instead of "unemployed" or "jobseeker".

 

An even bigger laugh is that some DWP/JCP staff are going to be sanctioning themselves because of it. I wonder how they'll get out of it?

At the risk of sounding like a vulture, I'd like to hear more about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An even bigger laugh is that some DWP/JCP staff are going to be sanctioning themselves because of it. I wonder how they'll get out of it?

At the risk of sounding like a vulture, I'd like to hear more about this.

 

A lot of DWP/JCP staff claim a form of benefit one way or another, for those at the low low end of the scale there were plans for them to sign up to the UJ site to look for other/part time jobs and use it against them to get them off whatever it is they are claiming for. Within this, if a staff member uses the UJ site and is under review in their workplace, they can unwittingly sanction themselves if they don't apply for certain jobs within the field.

 

It will probably come to nothing but it certainly amused me when the rumblings came through the grapevine. I haven't heard much since December though.

 

There is a slight mention to it here though: PCS Website

 

For those who can't click the link:

 

Impact on staff as claimants

It is estimated that as many as 40% of the staff working on UC will also be entitled to claim UC, once UC replaces working tax credits. This presents a number of issues. Firstly is to ensure that any staff claims are dealt with in a way that ensures complete confidentiality.

 

Of more concern is the impact of the increased conditionality regime that UC will introduce. This is likely to particularly impact on part time staff claiming UC whose gross part time pay is below the full time national minimum wage. In this case they may be subject to a similar conditionality regime to current JSA and ESA claimants. In other words they could be expected to attend interviews with Job Centre advisors whose role would be to encourage them to increase their earnings in order to take them off UC.

 

This is of course something totally new and is extremely sensitive. PCS’ view is that it is wrong to extend conditionality to anyone who is in work and is currently arguing for the UC regulations to be changed accordingly. However the government appear determined to treat in work UC claimants in the same way that they treat out of work claimants. DWP has yet to decide how they may handle any DWP staff who are affected by this.

 

Also if you want to know whats coming up and what could be coming up have a read through this:

Public & Commercial Union Services - DWP

 

This is a sly move as well, taken from the above site:

 

Department for Work and Pensions group

 

Short Term Benefit Advances

11 February 2013

 

The abolition of Social Fund Crisis Loans from 1 April 2013 means that Crisis Loan alignment payments will also end. Claimants making a new claim to benefit, and who cannot manage until their first payday will, from April onwards, have to apply for a Short Term Benefit Advance (STBA) instead.

Conditions

 

DWP does not intend to advertise the availability of STBAs to the public. They will be only offered to a claimant if they indicate to the member of staff taking their claim that they cannot manage financially. The availability of a STBA will not be immediately obvious to those claiming on line.

 

STBAs are subject to three criteria:

 

There is an underlying benefit entitlement or reasonable expectation that there is entitlement to benefit;

The claimant can afford to repay – other debt and loan repayments will be taken into account;

There is financial need – there is serious risk to the health and safety of a family member.

 

Decisions on STBAs will not be subject to review or appeal. Those who do not qualify will be ‘sign-posted’ by staff to their Local Authority’s Local Welfare Provision. The nature of this provision will vary from local authority to local authority and in many cases may not be in the form of a cash payment.

Staffing

 

Management estimate that 1,069 full time equivalent staff will be required to deliver STBAs in April 2013. These staff will in the main be staff previously working on Social Fund or Crisis Loans and will be located in both CCS and BD. This number is expected to decrease to 787 by August 2013 as the new system becomes established and the public become more aware of the changes and of the alternative support provided by Local Authorities. This fall in staffing will mainly be in the contact centres. It is not clear at this stage how this will be managed. Numbers in Benefit Delivery Centres should remain static.

Impact

 

Training will be provided for all staff likely to be engaged in the administration of STBAs. Information gathering will be conducted primarily at AO level with decisions being made by EOs.

 

Conclusion

 

The STBA system has been devised at the very last minute. It remains to be seen if management’s staffing projections are correct and PCS will continue to press management to ensure the STBA work is fully staffed. The abolition of Crisis Loans is a big gamble by the department. PCS fear the reactions of angry claimants when they realise Crisis Loans no longer exist and they see that the local authority provision meant to replace them is hopelessly inadequate. PCS will continue to raise these concerns with management to ensure that all necessary safeguards are in place to ensure members’ safety. The introduction of STBAs are welcome as a partial mitigation to the abolition of Crisis loans and also as a way of absorbing potentially surplus Social Fund staff. It remains to be seen how adequate the new system is as a means of supporting claimants in acute financial need.

 

A) They don't intend to let anyone really know about it.

B) Devised at the last minute.

 

All you need to know about these fuckers. Yes, the social fund is widely abused but that it because they allowed it to be abused, now they are squeezing the necks of those who do/or may need to use it for legitimate purposes. Yes, some people may be able to get something out of them but I'm betting that they'll have to jump through hoops to get it.

Edited by Rule One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been on JSA for over 12 months and am on the work programme. I've had a few issues with the UJM some of the jobs links don't work and I've had a few which have been for driving jobs but when I went to the interview it was for cold calling work. When Ive brought this up with my advisor they said there is nothing they can do. Ingeus works website which is like UJM is even shitter as its the same jobs as the UJM ones.

Also I haven't really had any help from Ingeus but having a bit luck on the job front lately but my adviser is taking all the credit and if I get in to work she gets some kind of incentive she has done fuck all. I could seriously do her it doesn't seem too hard and speaking with other people on the programme alls the advisor's seem to do is copy and paste CV's and covering letters, So even if you did get a interview if four people from the same office apply the CV's and letters will look the same down to even the fonts.

Edited by sonic screwdriver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been on JSA for over 12 months and am on the work programme. I've had a few issues with the UJM some of the jobs links don't work and I've had a few which have been for driving jobs but when I went to the interview it was for cold calling work. When Ive brought this up with my advisor they said there is nothing they can do. Ingeus works website which is like UJM is even shitter as its the same jobs as the UJM ones.

Also I haven't really had any help from Ingeus but having a bit luck on the job front but my adviser is taking all the credit and if I get in to work she gets some kind of incentive she has done fuck all. I could seriously do her it doesn't seem too hard and speaking with other people on the programme alls the advisor's seem to do is copy and paste CV's and covering letters, So even if you did get a interview if four people from the same office apply the CV's and letters will look the same down to even the fonts.

 

The main issues I've faced with clients about UJ is that there is limited jobs and those get recycled on a weekly basis. Usually they're listed and then re-list the same thing under company confidential with a different date and if you're lucky a Reference code to make it look a bit better. However, the re-posts are usually worded the same and are easy to spot.

 

A lot of jobs are scams even though they say they are doing their best to keep them to a minimum. The site isn't safe and should never have been launched in its current state. Its a massive joke.

 

Thankfully the site isn't mandatory yet but if they succeed with their plans to make it that way, it will cause me and my clients no end of trouble.

Edited by Rule One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know its not mandatory but I get the feeling if I didn't use it I would be sanctioned not worth the risk to me. I didnt realise it had so many bugs Ive got my CV on there it cant be hacked can it ?

 

Its shit that you feel that way but you are far from alone within that. Just be careful what you apply for on the site and read everything that you can within the Job Details.

 

As far as I know, it can't be hacked but it is easy enough to put fake jobs on there to accrue people's/personal details. I don't think anyone would really try to hack the site as its a death wish in waiting.

 

When the site first launched, its data centers were listed in the USA, I don't know if that still applies with it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know its not mandatory but I get the feeling if I didn't use it I would be sanctioned not worth the risk to me. I didnt realise it had so many bugs Ive got my CV on there it cant be hacked can it ?

 

Its shit that you feel that way but you are far from alone within that.

My account exists on UJ soley because I was told flat out that it was mandatory, as was granting them access to my account. As I'd largely lost the will to live by this point, I just did it without question and only found out later that it wasn't mandatory.

 

My advisor was quite the lying bastard on a number of occassions. I still have a shitty email in my drafts folder, asking him if he'd like to apologise.

 

When the site first launched, its data centers were listed in the USA, I don't know if that still applies with it though.

Unless it's changed recently, it's still all controlled by Monster.com, who are most definatelty not using the data as a massive source of market research.

Edited by bAzTNM#1 Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been on JSA for over 12 months and am on the work programme. I've had a few issues with the UJM some of the jobs links don't work and I've had a few which have been for driving jobs but when I went to the interview it was for cold calling work. When Ive brought this up with my advisor they said there is nothing they can do. Ingeus works website which is like UJM is even shitter as its the same jobs as the UJM ones.

Also I haven't really had any help from Ingeus but having a bit luck on the job front but my adviser is taking all the credit and if I get in to work she gets some kind of incentive she has done fuck all. I could seriously do her it doesn't seem too hard and speaking with other people on the programme alls the advisor's seem to do is copy and paste CV's and covering letters, So even if you did get a interview if four people from the same office apply the CV's and letters will look the same down to even the fonts.

 

The main issues I've faced with clients about UJ is that there is limited jobs and those get recycled on a weekly basis. Usually they're listed and then re-list the same thing under company confidential with a different date and if you're lucky a Reference code to make it look a bit better. However, the re-posts are usually worded the same and are easy to spot.

 

A lot of jobs are scams even though they say they are doing their best to keep them to a minimum. The site isn't safe and should never have been launched in its current state. Its a massive joke.

 

Thankfully the site isn't mandatory yet but if they succeed with their plans to make it that way, it will cause me and my clients no end of trouble.

 

You should go to the papers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt that it will become mandatory, as we would have to give the clients access to do the jobsearches at the office, and having only 2 pcs that are public use it would be impossible.

 

UJM is indeed a Monster based system. I theory it could be usefull, but the postcode search is way out and there are never any apply by dates on the jobs. I encourage use of it, but am more than happy when the client brings in other stuff they have gone for from other sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question: Do advisors get in trouble if they don't sanction x amount of people or whatever? Just, I've never really understood why a JSA advisor would really care if the client is actually really searching that hard for a job or if they are just telling lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just, I've never really understood why a JSA advisor would really care if the client is actually really searching that hard for a job or if they are just telling lies.

 

As hard as it might be for you to fathom other people sometimes give a shit about how well they do their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt that it will become mandatory, as we would have to give the clients access to do the jobsearches at the office, and having only 2 pcs that are public use it would be impossible.

 

UJM is indeed a Monster based system. I theory it could be usefull, but the postcode search is way out and there are never any apply by dates on the jobs. I encourage use of it, but am more than happy when the client brings in other stuff they have gone for from other sources.

 

The DWP don't care, they have already lied to thousands by saying it is mandatory for benefit claimants to sign up and use the site. Managers and line managers are trying to convince the front line workers to push it as truth and the DWP want it to be mandatory but know it will never pass regulations in its current state.

 

I have a question: Do advisors get in trouble if they don't sanction x amount of people or whatever? Just, I've never really understood why a JSA advisor would really care if the client is actually really searching that hard for a job or if they are just telling lies.

 

I've heard further field stories about this happening once upon a time but from the people I have and do work with, this is untrue. Advisors are encouraged to keep a watchful eye on a claimants details and job search activity, hence the implementation of UJ. It was/has been brought in as an easier way to snoop and sanction people under the guise of being the future of job-searching for claimants. (Since most positions advertised generally want to receive a CV/details via e-mail.)

 

Most advisors know the score and aren't heartless monsters some perceive them to be, they are only human and bare the brunt of all the shit flowing down on to them from management. However, one or two are just plain cunts and take joy in having power over people's lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a question: Do advisors get in trouble if they don't sanction x amount of people or whatever? Just, I've never really understood why a JSA advisor would really care if the client is actually really searching that hard for a job or if they are just telling lies.

 

Yes and no. Our caseloads are inspected by managers, and if a person is not complying, we have to explain why we have not referred for DMA (slang for sending the case to the desision makers, who decide ehether or not to impose sanctions.). Say for example if someone is supposed to apply for 3 jobs a week and they have only gone for 1, or if we have put them on a course and they have not attended. As long as we can give good reasons for not dishing out punishments, all is ok. If not, we get a bollocking.

 

The basic requirement is that a person has to apply for 3 jobs per week, and attend interviews with us either weekly or fortnightly depending on age. Most people can manage that and at most it would take 90 minutes of their lives maximum per week to do. Not really that hard for a majority of people. If there are any issues, learning difficulties, confidence problems etc, I try my very best to find a resource for them to help them through it, an dthe help is out there. If it's that they just can't be arsed, then they I tend to give them a warning that things need to improve before I do anything. Everyone fucks up now and again, and I accept that wholeheartedly, and it's easy to weed out the not arsed from the unfortunate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just, I've never really understood why a JSA advisor would really care if the client is actually really searching that hard for a job or if they are just telling lies.

 

As hard as it might be for you to fathom other people sometimes give a shit about how well they do their job.

 

Why you being so mean to me lately? You are going to drive me back to bottle. That's on you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I doubt that it will become mandatory, as we would have to give the clients access to do the jobsearches at the office, and having only 2 pcs that are public use it would be impossible.

 

UJM is indeed a Monster based system. I theory it could be usefull, but the postcode search is way out and there are never any apply by dates on the jobs. I encourage use of it, but am more than happy when the client brings in other stuff they have gone for from other sources.

 

The DWP don't care, they have already lied to thousands by saying it is mandatory for benefit claimants to sign up and use the site. Managers and line managers are trying to convince the front line workers to push it as truth and the DWP want it to be mandatory but know it will never pass regulations in its current state.

 

I have a question: Do advisors get in trouble if they don't sanction x amount of people or whatever? Just, I've never really understood why a JSA advisor would really care if the client is actually really searching that hard for a job or if they are just telling lies.

 

I've heard further field stories about this happening once upon a time but from the people I have and do work with, this is untrue. Advisors are encouraged to keep a watchful eye on a claimants details and job search activity, hence the implementation of UJ. It was/has been brought in as an easier way to snoop and sanction people under the guise of being the future of job-searching for claimants. (Since most positions advertised generally want to receive a CV/details via e-mail.)

 

Most advisors know the score and aren't heartless monsters some perceive them to be, they are only human and bare the brunt of all the shit flowing down on to them from management. However, one or two are just plain cunts and take joy in having power over people's lives.

 

While we have been encouraged to get people to use it, I can honestly say from my office anyway, that we have not been pushed to lie to people about it being mandatory. On moral grounds, I personally would not do it even if we were pushed. There has to be a level of trust that people can expect from PA's, and this should not be comprimised.

 

As for the one or two being just plain cunts, unfortunatly you always get some people in some jobs that use it as a power-thing. It's a shame, as they give us all a bad name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...