Opinion divided in Bradford on jobseeker changes

Opinion divided in Bradford on jobseeker changes

Opinion divided in Bradford on jobseeker changes

First published in News
Last updated
Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Photograph of the Author by , T&A Reporter

Forthcoming changes to how people receive Jobseekers’ Allowance have divided opinion among politicians.

Later this month new rules that require jobseekers to work harder to get their benefits will be brought in by the coalition Government.

They claim it will bring an end to the “one way street” of benefits, which the Government argues allows people to sign on without making themselves employable first.

Among things jobseekers will be asked to do are preparing a CV, set up an e-mail address and register for the Government’s new jobs website. Fortnightly meetings with Jobcentre advisers could be replaced by weekly meetings and new claimants will need to have quarterly progress reviews.

Minister for Employment Esther McVey said: “With the economy growing, unemployment falling and record numbers of people in work, now is the time to start expecting more of people if they want to claim benefits.

“It’s only right that we should ask people to take the first basic steps to getting a job before they start claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance – it will show they are taking their search for work seriously.

“This is about treating people like adults and setting out clearly what is expected of them so they can hit the ground running. In return, we will give people as much help and support as possible to move off benefits and into work because we know from employers that it’s the people who are prepared and enthusiastic who are most likely to get the job.”

Shipley Tory MP Philip Davies said: “I want to see as many young people move into work as possible.

“People can’t just sit back and expect a job to come to them. While people are receiving benefits paid for by the taxpayer they should be doing everything they can to find a job.

“When you are out of work your job is to find a job.

“The Government has been extremely successful getting people back to work - obviously there is still a long way to go. Some people might see this as tough love, but that is not necessarily a bad thing.”

Bradford East MP David Ward (Lib Dem) said: “I have received a few complaints that people do attend the job centre and don’t get the support they need. I would be very concerned if it came out that sanctions were being used against people who were missing these new targets for minor reasons or through genuine mistakes.”

Comments (53)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:22am Tue 8 Apr 14

OLDLAD says...

You already have to have a cv, be on govenment website and search for jobs. Only difference is to attend job centre once a week instead of once a fortnight. Would be helpful if jobs on goverment jobs site were indate and not expired. Be even better if there were jobs to be had.
You already have to have a cv, be on govenment website and search for jobs. Only difference is to attend job centre once a week instead of once a fortnight. Would be helpful if jobs on goverment jobs site were indate and not expired. Be even better if there were jobs to be had. OLDLAD
  • Score: 19

7:33am Tue 8 Apr 14

johnh1 says...

If someone is serious about getting a job visiting the job centre
would surly be a daily event.
If someone is serious about getting a job visiting the job centre would surly be a daily event. johnh1
  • Score: 1

8:10am Tue 8 Apr 14

OLDLAD says...

johnh1 wrote:
If someone is serious about getting a job visiting the job centre
would surly be a daily event.
I get notifications of jobs from many recruiters, usually the same jobs. I apply for them and three weeks later I am told by the job centre to apply for same jobs as they are new. The look on their faces is a picture when I say I have applied and wasn't selected. Government job site = not fit for purpose.
[quote][p][bold]johnh1[/bold] wrote: If someone is serious about getting a job visiting the job centre would surly be a daily event.[/p][/quote]I get notifications of jobs from many recruiters, usually the same jobs. I apply for them and three weeks later I am told by the job centre to apply for same jobs as they are new. The look on their faces is a picture when I say I have applied and wasn't selected. Government job site = not fit for purpose. OLDLAD
  • Score: 17

8:11am Tue 8 Apr 14

OLDLAD says...

johnh1 wrote:
If someone is serious about getting a job visiting the job centre
would surly be a daily event.
I get notifications of jobs from many recruiters, usually the same jobs. I apply for them and three weeks later I am told by the job centre to apply for same jobs as they are new. The look on their faces is a picture when I say I have applied and wasn't selected. Government job site = not fit for purpose.
[quote][p][bold]johnh1[/bold] wrote: If someone is serious about getting a job visiting the job centre would surly be a daily event.[/p][/quote]I get notifications of jobs from many recruiters, usually the same jobs. I apply for them and three weeks later I am told by the job centre to apply for same jobs as they are new. The look on their faces is a picture when I say I have applied and wasn't selected. Government job site = not fit for purpose. OLDLAD
  • Score: 1

9:13am Tue 8 Apr 14

Andy2010 says...

Good

Surely securing a job when you unemployed is a full time job in itself so no-one can moan about having to attend a weekly update at the Job Centre.

I'll await the usual bleeding moaners brigade who will come on here when they emerge from their pits with a "there's no jobs" comments.

Well actually there is if you use an ounce of common sense and look around for 8 hours a day.
Good Surely securing a job when you unemployed is a full time job in itself so no-one can moan about having to attend a weekly update at the Job Centre. I'll await the usual bleeding moaners brigade who will come on here when they emerge from their pits with a "there's no jobs" comments. Well actually there is if you use an ounce of common sense and look around for 8 hours a day. Andy2010
  • Score: 1

9:49am Tue 8 Apr 14

allannicho says...

The Noose is tightening slowly but surely!
The Noose is tightening slowly but surely! allannicho
  • Score: 0

9:57am Tue 8 Apr 14

flower1950 says...

You already have to register with govenment web site as did my husband over a year ago, not that it did any good as the jobs were all through Agency work, and having no transport could not get to them. He did eventually find work by sheer determination and daily bus journey's after 6 months of looking. Agency work is rubbish as my son in law who has 2 children knows.. you get to a job maybe for a week or in his last one 2 days before they said NO MORE WORK.. he then has to go back and then reinstate all benefits that have been stopped to support his family, which by the way takes a lot longer than it does for them to stop them.
You already have to register with govenment web site as did my husband over a year ago, not that it did any good as the jobs were all through Agency work, and having no transport could not get to them. He did eventually find work by sheer determination and daily bus journey's after 6 months of looking. Agency work is rubbish as my son in law who has 2 children knows.. you get to a job maybe for a week or in his last one 2 days before they said NO MORE WORK.. he then has to go back and then reinstate all benefits that have been stopped to support his family, which by the way takes a lot longer than it does for them to stop them. flower1950
  • Score: 18

10:41am Tue 8 Apr 14

johnh1 says...

OLDLAD wrote:
johnh1 wrote:
If someone is serious about getting a job visiting the job centre
would surly be a daily event.
I get notifications of jobs from many recruiters, usually the same jobs. I apply for them and three weeks later I am told by the job centre to apply for same jobs as they are new. The look on their faces is a picture when I say I have applied and wasn't selected. Government job site = not fit for purpose.
I know they are crap and feel sorry for the genuine ones.
But cant blame the government for trying.
[quote][p][bold]OLDLAD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnh1[/bold] wrote: If someone is serious about getting a job visiting the job centre would surly be a daily event.[/p][/quote]I get notifications of jobs from many recruiters, usually the same jobs. I apply for them and three weeks later I am told by the job centre to apply for same jobs as they are new. The look on their faces is a picture when I say I have applied and wasn't selected. Government job site = not fit for purpose.[/p][/quote]I know they are crap and feel sorry for the genuine ones. But cant blame the government for trying. johnh1
  • Score: -4

11:17am Tue 8 Apr 14

dellorri says...

All well and good you might say, what they've failed to tell you about in this article, are the NEW penalties they have also bought into being at the same time as these new rules to "empower" jobseekers.
Should anyone make a GENUINE mistake when filling in forms, thus giving wrong information, they WILL be fined £350. Bailliffs and debt collection agencies are to be employed to collect fines and debts and are to be given new powers to enable them to collect debts and seize assets to repay debts and fines. Those who will be among the number of new wave "criminals" include pensioners, who fail, even by GENUINE ERROR, to disclose their full income from private pensions. Measures taken by bailiffs etc. may include making people sell their privately owned homes to pay their fines or debts.
Source: The Daily Telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk/
news/politics/107471
22/Benefit-cheats-fa
ce-higher-fines-and-
losing-their-homes.h
tml
All well and good you might say, what they've failed to tell you about in this article, are the NEW penalties they have also bought into being at the same time as these new rules to "empower" jobseekers. Should anyone make a GENUINE mistake when filling in forms, thus giving wrong information, they WILL be fined £350. Bailliffs and debt collection agencies are to be employed to collect fines and debts and are to be given new powers to enable them to collect debts and seize assets to repay debts and fines. Those who will be among the number of new wave "criminals" include pensioners, who fail, even by GENUINE ERROR, to disclose their full income from private pensions. Measures taken by bailiffs etc. may include making people sell their privately owned homes to pay their fines or debts. Source: The Daily Telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/politics/107471 22/Benefit-cheats-fa ce-higher-fines-and- losing-their-homes.h tml dellorri
  • Score: 9

11:46am Tue 8 Apr 14

mr.bradford says...

When are the schemes coming in that tackle the long term bone idle that's what i want to know.. work for the dole. 30 hours community service. job centre daily visits / 10 hours a week looking for work..
C'mon George it's April, get it rolled out because they are all still sat on their backsides laughing!
When are the schemes coming in that tackle the long term bone idle that's what i want to know.. work for the dole. 30 hours community service. job centre daily visits / 10 hours a week looking for work.. C'mon George it's April, get it rolled out because they are all still sat on their backsides laughing! mr.bradford
  • Score: -5

12:11pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Andy2010 says...

dellorri wrote:
All well and good you might say, what they've failed to tell you about in this article, are the NEW penalties they have also bought into being at the same time as these new rules to "empower" jobseekers.
Should anyone make a GENUINE mistake when filling in forms, thus giving wrong information, they WILL be fined £350. Bailliffs and debt collection agencies are to be employed to collect fines and debts and are to be given new powers to enable them to collect debts and seize assets to repay debts and fines. Those who will be among the number of new wave "criminals" include pensioners, who fail, even by GENUINE ERROR, to disclose their full income from private pensions. Measures taken by bailiffs etc. may include making people sell their privately owned homes to pay their fines or debts.
Source: The Daily Telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk/

news/politics/107471

22/Benefit-cheats-fa

ce-higher-fines-and-

losing-their-homes.h

tml
What rubbish
Just typical Telegraph scare mongering

If an error is made it will be put right.

Bailiffs cannot collect debts without a judgement and in order to get to that stage would take a hell of a lot of ignoring by the claimant.

Sell their house.....for gods sake thats a pretty dramatic statement. IN order for this to happen it would need the court to grant seizure which they are extremely reluctant to do and in 3rd party debts is almost unheard off unless they run in the hundreds of thousands.

You are just towing the telegraph line and scaremongering.

In essence all they are doing is exactly the same if for example you didnt pay your water bill. If you didnt you would be sent to court, judgement granted and then if you still refused to pay bailiffs "could" attend.

So no dont blame the DWP for this because if you are in essence you are blaming every single business in the UK that approaches the same stance on consumer "debts"
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: All well and good you might say, what they've failed to tell you about in this article, are the NEW penalties they have also bought into being at the same time as these new rules to "empower" jobseekers. Should anyone make a GENUINE mistake when filling in forms, thus giving wrong information, they WILL be fined £350. Bailliffs and debt collection agencies are to be employed to collect fines and debts and are to be given new powers to enable them to collect debts and seize assets to repay debts and fines. Those who will be among the number of new wave "criminals" include pensioners, who fail, even by GENUINE ERROR, to disclose their full income from private pensions. Measures taken by bailiffs etc. may include making people sell their privately owned homes to pay their fines or debts. Source: The Daily Telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/politics/107471 22/Benefit-cheats-fa ce-higher-fines-and- losing-their-homes.h tml[/p][/quote]What rubbish Just typical Telegraph scare mongering If an error is made it will be put right. Bailiffs cannot collect debts without a judgement and in order to get to that stage would take a hell of a lot of ignoring by the claimant. Sell their house.....for gods sake thats a pretty dramatic statement. IN order for this to happen it would need the court to grant seizure which they are extremely reluctant to do and in 3rd party debts is almost unheard off unless they run in the hundreds of thousands. You are just towing the telegraph line and scaremongering. In essence all they are doing is exactly the same if for example you didnt pay your water bill. If you didnt you would be sent to court, judgement granted and then if you still refused to pay bailiffs "could" attend. So no dont blame the DWP for this because if you are in essence you are blaming every single business in the UK that approaches the same stance on consumer "debts" Andy2010
  • Score: 2

12:31pm Tue 8 Apr 14

britgemma22 says...

having been back in the country after 6 years living and working in ireland i find myself unemployed and no money it seems that people travelling from eastern europe have more chance of getting dole than me;just for the record i was never unemployed in yorkshire paid all my taxes from 1979 till 2007 when i moved having paid a large amount into the system i now cannot get any money from the state having ssent out over a 100cvs to employers etc.at the gym the other day an eastern european gentleman that only arrived 4 weeks ago never lived here before now gets dole and housing benefit fo his kids and wife what a strange world we live in 35 years in the printing trade and it has come down to this
having been back in the country after 6 years living and working in ireland i find myself unemployed and no money it seems that people travelling from eastern europe have more chance of getting dole than me;just for the record i was never unemployed in yorkshire paid all my taxes from 1979 till 2007 when i moved having paid a large amount into the system i now cannot get any money from the state having ssent out over a 100cvs to employers etc.at the gym the other day an eastern european gentleman that only arrived 4 weeks ago never lived here before now gets dole and housing benefit fo his kids and wife what a strange world we live in 35 years in the printing trade and it has come down to this britgemma22
  • Score: 10

12:45pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Class_War says...

Why does Esther McVey hate the Workers so much that she wants to deny them the State Benefits they have already paid for and are Rightfully entitled to?
Why does Esther McVey hate the Workers so much that she wants to deny them the State Benefits they have already paid for and are Rightfully entitled to? Class_War
  • Score: 8

12:47pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Class_War says...

Andy2010, don't you have any work to be getting on with?
Andy2010, don't you have any work to be getting on with? Class_War
  • Score: 1

12:50pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Class_War says...

Benefit Sanctions are a form of State Terrorism, as defined by International Law; "action or threat of action intended to intimidate the public or a section of the public". McVey is a Terrorist.

http://johnnyvoid.wo
rdpress.com/2013/10/
27/benefit-sanctions
-are-state-terrorism
-and-must-be-stopped
-without-exceptions/
Benefit Sanctions are a form of State Terrorism, as defined by International Law; "action or threat of action intended to intimidate the public or a section of the public". McVey is a Terrorist. http://johnnyvoid.wo rdpress.com/2013/10/ 27/benefit-sanctions -are-state-terrorism -and-must-be-stopped -without-exceptions/ Class_War
  • Score: 5

12:53pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Class_War says...

The British People are being robbed of their State Benefits by a Government that flagrantly flouts the Law:

http://welfarenewsse
rvice.com/level-uk-b
enefits-inadequate-s
ays-council-europe/
The British People are being robbed of their State Benefits by a Government that flagrantly flouts the Law: http://welfarenewsse rvice.com/level-uk-b enefits-inadequate-s ays-council-europe/ Class_War
  • Score: 3

12:59pm Tue 8 Apr 14

allinittogether says...

britgemma22 wrote:
having been back in the country after 6 years living and working in ireland i find myself unemployed and no money it seems that people travelling from eastern europe have more chance of getting dole than me;just for the record i was never unemployed in yorkshire paid all my taxes from 1979 till 2007 when i moved having paid a large amount into the system i now cannot get any money from the state having ssent out over a 100cvs to employers etc.at the gym the other day an eastern european gentleman that only arrived 4 weeks ago never lived here before now gets dole and housing benefit fo his kids and wife what a strange world we live in 35 years in the printing trade and it has come down to this
What's the difference between you going to work in Ireland and Eastern Europeans coming to work here?
[quote][p][bold]britgemma22[/bold] wrote: having been back in the country after 6 years living and working in ireland i find myself unemployed and no money it seems that people travelling from eastern europe have more chance of getting dole than me;just for the record i was never unemployed in yorkshire paid all my taxes from 1979 till 2007 when i moved having paid a large amount into the system i now cannot get any money from the state having ssent out over a 100cvs to employers etc.at the gym the other day an eastern european gentleman that only arrived 4 weeks ago never lived here before now gets dole and housing benefit fo his kids and wife what a strange world we live in 35 years in the printing trade and it has come down to this[/p][/quote]What's the difference between you going to work in Ireland and Eastern Europeans coming to work here? allinittogether
  • Score: 2

1:05pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Andy2010 says...

Class_War wrote:
Why does Esther McVey hate the Workers so much that she wants to deny them the State Benefits they have already paid for and are Rightfully entitled to?
Deny them which benefits.

Your confusing "rightfully"
[quote][p][bold]Class_War[/bold] wrote: Why does Esther McVey hate the Workers so much that she wants to deny them the State Benefits they have already paid for and are Rightfully entitled to?[/p][/quote]Deny them which benefits. Your confusing "rightfully" Andy2010
  • Score: 1

1:06pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Andy2010 says...

Class_War wrote:
Benefit Sanctions are a form of State Terrorism, as defined by International Law; "action or threat of action intended to intimidate the public or a section of the public". McVey is a Terrorist.

http://johnnyvoid.wo

rdpress.com/2013/10/

27/benefit-sanctions

-are-state-terrorism

-and-must-be-stopped

-without-exceptions/
Wow

A wordpress document written by ....well some random person

Must be true
[quote][p][bold]Class_War[/bold] wrote: Benefit Sanctions are a form of State Terrorism, as defined by International Law; "action or threat of action intended to intimidate the public or a section of the public". McVey is a Terrorist. http://johnnyvoid.wo rdpress.com/2013/10/ 27/benefit-sanctions -are-state-terrorism -and-must-be-stopped -without-exceptions/[/p][/quote]Wow A wordpress document written by ....well some random person Must be true Andy2010
  • Score: 2

1:07pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Andy2010 says...

allinittogether wrote:
britgemma22 wrote:
having been back in the country after 6 years living and working in ireland i find myself unemployed and no money it seems that people travelling from eastern europe have more chance of getting dole than me;just for the record i was never unemployed in yorkshire paid all my taxes from 1979 till 2007 when i moved having paid a large amount into the system i now cannot get any money from the state having ssent out over a 100cvs to employers etc.at the gym the other day an eastern european gentleman that only arrived 4 weeks ago never lived here before now gets dole and housing benefit fo his kids and wife what a strange world we live in 35 years in the printing trade and it has come down to this
What's the difference between you going to work in Ireland and Eastern Europeans coming to work here?
Exactly what I was thinking. An immigrant is a immigrant isnt it?

Also the poster would be entitled to JSA would they not unless he/she has a lot of savings.
[quote][p][bold]allinittogether[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]britgemma22[/bold] wrote: having been back in the country after 6 years living and working in ireland i find myself unemployed and no money it seems that people travelling from eastern europe have more chance of getting dole than me;just for the record i was never unemployed in yorkshire paid all my taxes from 1979 till 2007 when i moved having paid a large amount into the system i now cannot get any money from the state having ssent out over a 100cvs to employers etc.at the gym the other day an eastern european gentleman that only arrived 4 weeks ago never lived here before now gets dole and housing benefit fo his kids and wife what a strange world we live in 35 years in the printing trade and it has come down to this[/p][/quote]What's the difference between you going to work in Ireland and Eastern Europeans coming to work here?[/p][/quote]Exactly what I was thinking. An immigrant is a immigrant isnt it? Also the poster would be entitled to JSA would they not unless he/she has a lot of savings. Andy2010
  • Score: 2

1:40pm Tue 8 Apr 14

The Hoffster says...

Andy2010 wrote:
Good

Surely securing a job when you unemployed is a full time job in itself so no-one can moan about having to attend a weekly update at the Job Centre.

I'll await the usual bleeding moaners brigade who will come on here when they emerge from their pits with a "there's no jobs" comments.

Well actually there is if you use an ounce of common sense and look around for 8 hours a day.
Can you tell us how an individual can spend 8 hours a day looking for a job?

In reality, it'll probably take no more than about 2 hours. I mean, assuming you have a few hard copies of your CV (as well as online), it's not gonna take a whole working day to apply for about 10 jobs.

And if the unemployed are required to job-hunt on a daily basis, how many can they apply for ?

If it's 10 a day, that mounts to about 50-60 a week. Are there going to be new ones advertised en masse every 7 days.

Yeah right.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: Good Surely securing a job when you unemployed is a full time job in itself so no-one can moan about having to attend a weekly update at the Job Centre. I'll await the usual bleeding moaners brigade who will come on here when they emerge from their pits with a "there's no jobs" comments. Well actually there is if you use an ounce of common sense and look around for 8 hours a day.[/p][/quote]Can you tell us how an individual can spend 8 hours a day looking for a job? In reality, it'll probably take no more than about 2 hours. I mean, assuming you have a few hard copies of your CV (as well as online), it's not gonna take a whole working day to apply for about 10 jobs. And if the unemployed are required to job-hunt on a daily basis, how many can they apply for ? If it's 10 a day, that mounts to about 50-60 a week. Are there going to be new ones advertised en masse every 7 days. Yeah right. The Hoffster
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Andy2010 says...

The Hoffster wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
Good

Surely securing a job when you unemployed is a full time job in itself so no-one can moan about having to attend a weekly update at the Job Centre.

I'll await the usual bleeding moaners brigade who will come on here when they emerge from their pits with a "there's no jobs" comments.

Well actually there is if you use an ounce of common sense and look around for 8 hours a day.
Can you tell us how an individual can spend 8 hours a day looking for a job?

In reality, it'll probably take no more than about 2 hours. I mean, assuming you have a few hard copies of your CV (as well as online), it's not gonna take a whole working day to apply for about 10 jobs.

And if the unemployed are required to job-hunt on a daily basis, how many can they apply for ?

If it's 10 a day, that mounts to about 50-60 a week. Are there going to be new ones advertised en masse every 7 days.

Yeah right.
Quite easy really. You target areas.

Yes apply online for as many as possible so yeah that's about an hour or so a day. The remainder of the time highlight all businesses in a certain area and walk around all these businesses handing in your cv.

Totally agree 90% of time this will be a complete waste of time but its odds game and the more you apply for and put your face out there the more chance of a job. If for example you targeted Bradford Centre one day, Leeds centre another day, Halifax another day then covered surrounding areas this would take up a "working week".

Sure someone will now post something about affording to travel to these places to do this but train fares don't cost that much (about as much as 10g of rolling tobacco) and you can do the rest on foot for free.

Also personally handing in your cv to a business adds a lot to your chance of being interviewed as companies or businesses can see from the outset that you have put in ground work and are driven without them even interviewing you.
[quote][p][bold]The Hoffster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: Good Surely securing a job when you unemployed is a full time job in itself so no-one can moan about having to attend a weekly update at the Job Centre. I'll await the usual bleeding moaners brigade who will come on here when they emerge from their pits with a "there's no jobs" comments. Well actually there is if you use an ounce of common sense and look around for 8 hours a day.[/p][/quote]Can you tell us how an individual can spend 8 hours a day looking for a job? In reality, it'll probably take no more than about 2 hours. I mean, assuming you have a few hard copies of your CV (as well as online), it's not gonna take a whole working day to apply for about 10 jobs. And if the unemployed are required to job-hunt on a daily basis, how many can they apply for ? If it's 10 a day, that mounts to about 50-60 a week. Are there going to be new ones advertised en masse every 7 days. Yeah right.[/p][/quote]Quite easy really. You target areas. Yes apply online for as many as possible so yeah that's about an hour or so a day. The remainder of the time highlight all businesses in a certain area and walk around all these businesses handing in your cv. Totally agree 90% of time this will be a complete waste of time but its odds game and the more you apply for and put your face out there the more chance of a job. If for example you targeted Bradford Centre one day, Leeds centre another day, Halifax another day then covered surrounding areas this would take up a "working week". Sure someone will now post something about affording to travel to these places to do this but train fares don't cost that much (about as much as 10g of rolling tobacco) and you can do the rest on foot for free. Also personally handing in your cv to a business adds a lot to your chance of being interviewed as companies or businesses can see from the outset that you have put in ground work and are driven without them even interviewing you. Andy2010
  • Score: 1

2:24pm Tue 8 Apr 14

bonoforpm says...

johnh1 wrote:
If someone is serious about getting a job visiting the job centre
would surly be a daily event.
No, because it would be a waste of time, time that could be better spent job hunting on your own.

The JC+ staff are useless box-tickers who don't even know what service they are supposed to offer. They are there to police the benefits system.

The JC+ website is amateurishly built, difficult to search accurately and full of out of date and ghost jobs that never existed in the first place
[quote][p][bold]johnh1[/bold] wrote: If someone is serious about getting a job visiting the job centre would surly be a daily event.[/p][/quote]No, because it would be a waste of time, time that could be better spent job hunting on your own. The JC+ staff are useless box-tickers who don't even know what service they are supposed to offer. They are there to police the benefits system. The JC+ website is amateurishly built, difficult to search accurately and full of out of date and ghost jobs that never existed in the first place bonoforpm
  • Score: 4

2:38pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Andy2010 says...

bonoforpm wrote:
johnh1 wrote:
If someone is serious about getting a job visiting the job centre
would surly be a daily event.
No, because it would be a waste of time, time that could be better spent job hunting on your own.

The JC+ staff are useless box-tickers who don't even know what service they are supposed to offer. They are there to police the benefits system.

The JC+ website is amateurishly built, difficult to search accurately and full of out of date and ghost jobs that never existed in the first place
yes but how many are actually job hunting?

thats the whole point
[quote][p][bold]bonoforpm[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]johnh1[/bold] wrote: If someone is serious about getting a job visiting the job centre would surly be a daily event.[/p][/quote]No, because it would be a waste of time, time that could be better spent job hunting on your own. The JC+ staff are useless box-tickers who don't even know what service they are supposed to offer. They are there to police the benefits system. The JC+ website is amateurishly built, difficult to search accurately and full of out of date and ghost jobs that never existed in the first place[/p][/quote]yes but how many are actually job hunting? thats the whole point Andy2010
  • Score: 3

2:47pm Tue 8 Apr 14

justjustice says...

TBH the entire job recruitment service should be a public service, not run by thousands of private companies.

It's bad enough having to dig through hundreds of job postings, but when you find out that there are dozens of duplicate postings, it just wastes your time and adds to your depression of not being able to find a job.

Some recruitment agencies have several offices in a region, and employer would ask not only some of those offices but also other recruitment agencies to help them find an employee for their needs.
So you can end up with 5 agency offices posting the same job on the government Jobsearch site; some will be identical wording, others a little different, but it's still listed separately as if this single vacancy is actually 5.

Not only that, some agencies post this vacancy every day, or every few days! So imagine that, a jobseeker thinking they are applying to a dozen vacancies when in fact there is just one! That's time wasted on other jobs they could have applied to!

The government schemes to help people are set up to only help those who left schools with no qualifications! Remember that graduate who was told to work at Poundland sweeping the floor? How can you expect a graduate to get trained for a job when the "training" schemes send them off to someone so mundane and useless to them?!

As for the country growing, well that's a joke, release the REAL figure of unemployment including those who are in training schemes and those who have signed off, and those who have had their JSA stopped for the utterly insane reasons the government has imposed in order to reduce benefit payments!
TBH the entire job recruitment service should be a public service, not run by thousands of private companies. It's bad enough having to dig through hundreds of job postings, but when you find out that there are dozens of duplicate postings, it just wastes your time and adds to your depression of not being able to find a job. Some recruitment agencies have several offices in a region, and employer would ask not only some of those offices but also other recruitment agencies to help them find an employee for their needs. So you can end up with 5 agency offices posting the same job on the government Jobsearch site; some will be identical wording, others a little different, but it's still listed separately as if this single vacancy is actually 5. Not only that, some agencies post this vacancy every day, or every few days! So imagine that, a jobseeker thinking they are applying to a dozen vacancies when in fact there is just one! That's time wasted on other jobs they could have applied to! The government schemes to help people are set up to only help those who left schools with no qualifications! Remember that graduate who was told to work at Poundland sweeping the floor? How can you expect a graduate to get trained for a job when the "training" schemes send them off to someone so mundane and useless to them?! As for the country growing, well that's a joke, release the REAL figure of unemployment including those who are in training schemes and those who have signed off, and those who have had their JSA stopped for the utterly insane reasons the government has imposed in order to reduce benefit payments! justjustice
  • Score: 4

2:47pm Tue 8 Apr 14

RollandSmoke says...

allannicho wrote:
The Noose is tightening slowly but surely!
Is that what they are aiming for? A noose to starve the job seekers of the very oxygen they need to survive? It's what I've long since thought was what the Tories were after. It's nice that someones finally admitting it. It doesn't create jobs though does it although some rich Tory somewhere will be profiting from the money for old rope.
[quote][p][bold]allannicho[/bold] wrote: The Noose is tightening slowly but surely![/p][/quote]Is that what they are aiming for? A noose to starve the job seekers of the very oxygen they need to survive? It's what I've long since thought was what the Tories were after. It's nice that someones finally admitting it. It doesn't create jobs though does it although some rich Tory somewhere will be profiting from the money for old rope. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -2

3:00pm Tue 8 Apr 14

justjustice says...

Let's not forget that recruitment agencies are also supposed to find jobseekers jobs. So if there are so many jobs out there, and so many jobseekers, then what is happening?

Yes one can say most are not qualified for most positions; but how many people have actually looked at job postings? I've actually found one vacancy, it was for an admin assistant, the employer wanted someone with 10 YEARS of experience!!!!! Can you believe that!

Also let's not forget educational discrimination. An employer would hire an average person knowing that if they were offered a better paid job they would leave; but the employer will refuse to employ a graduate for fear that they would soon leave for a job better suited for them. The only difference is that one is a graduate the other is not, clear discrimination if you ask me.
Let's not forget that recruitment agencies are also supposed to find jobseekers jobs. So if there are so many jobs out there, and so many jobseekers, then what is happening? Yes one can say most are not qualified for most positions; but how many people have actually looked at job postings? I've actually found one vacancy, it was for an admin assistant, the employer wanted someone with 10 YEARS of experience!!!!! Can you believe that! Also let's not forget educational discrimination. An employer would hire an average person knowing that if they were offered a better paid job they would leave; but the employer will refuse to employ a graduate for fear that they would soon leave for a job better suited for them. The only difference is that one is a graduate the other is not, clear discrimination if you ask me. justjustice
  • Score: -2

3:19pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Andy2010 says...

justjustice wrote:
Let's not forget that recruitment agencies are also supposed to find jobseekers jobs. So if there are so many jobs out there, and so many jobseekers, then what is happening?

Yes one can say most are not qualified for most positions; but how many people have actually looked at job postings? I've actually found one vacancy, it was for an admin assistant, the employer wanted someone with 10 YEARS of experience!!!!! Can you believe that!

Also let's not forget educational discrimination. An employer would hire an average person knowing that if they were offered a better paid job they would leave; but the employer will refuse to employ a graduate for fear that they would soon leave for a job better suited for them. The only difference is that one is a graduate the other is not, clear discrimination if you ask me.
The issue with Graduates harks back to the last Government when they pushed nearly all students in Uni to make things look better than what they are. What we are left with is people with near useless degrees in areas that dont interest them anyway.

Two weeks ago I personally interviewed someone for an junior role fresh out of uni with a degree in BioScience. I asked how this would apply to the role they applied for and they didnt have a clue. Asking what type of job was ideal they also didnt have a clue. Sorry but i would have thought studying for so many years you would have at least some idea of how you were going to use that degree in future.

Uni's should tighten their belts on applications and only accept the cream of the crop who have a clearly mapped out career plan rather than just anyone looking for the "uni" experience.

By the way that person actually got the job and doing well so far but personally wish career guidance and interview techniques was somehow taught to students as some graduates literally cant string a sentence together thinking their degree means they should be able to walk into any job
[quote][p][bold]justjustice[/bold] wrote: Let's not forget that recruitment agencies are also supposed to find jobseekers jobs. So if there are so many jobs out there, and so many jobseekers, then what is happening? Yes one can say most are not qualified for most positions; but how many people have actually looked at job postings? I've actually found one vacancy, it was for an admin assistant, the employer wanted someone with 10 YEARS of experience!!!!! Can you believe that! Also let's not forget educational discrimination. An employer would hire an average person knowing that if they were offered a better paid job they would leave; but the employer will refuse to employ a graduate for fear that they would soon leave for a job better suited for them. The only difference is that one is a graduate the other is not, clear discrimination if you ask me.[/p][/quote]The issue with Graduates harks back to the last Government when they pushed nearly all students in Uni to make things look better than what they are. What we are left with is people with near useless degrees in areas that dont interest them anyway. Two weeks ago I personally interviewed someone for an junior role fresh out of uni with a degree in BioScience. I asked how this would apply to the role they applied for and they didnt have a clue. Asking what type of job was ideal they also didnt have a clue. Sorry but i would have thought studying for so many years you would have at least some idea of how you were going to use that degree in future. Uni's should tighten their belts on applications and only accept the cream of the crop who have a clearly mapped out career plan rather than just anyone looking for the "uni" experience. By the way that person actually got the job and doing well so far but personally wish career guidance and interview techniques was somehow taught to students as some graduates literally cant string a sentence together thinking their degree means they should be able to walk into any job Andy2010
  • Score: 4

3:29pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Hecky Thump!! says...

@ justjustice - Well said there, it is true that a lot of the vacancies on the Gov site are duplicated over and over giving a very false impression of job availability. It's a fact that the staff of these agencies have targets to meet and have to justify their existence, something I witnessed 20 years ago when I was registered with an agency who had me helping out in their office for a week. It was common practice to get the job section of the T&A (when it was pages thick) and call the companies advertising for staff in order to put forward likely candidates from their files, obviously not something they can do so much nowadays due to it all being contained within one page.

@ johnh1 - So you think there is something to be achieved by visiting the Jobcentre on a daily basis!!! I think you should try visiting one and try out the facilities. Certainly a far cry from 20 and 30 years ago when the jobs were posted up on postcards and then you saw an adviser to apply for it. If you don't have an appointment or you are deemed too early you don't get past security and there are so few of the ATM type machines in there you would be hanging around for a considerable time, time which would be better spent elsewhere on a computer given that there are around 9,000 jobless registered at Eastbrook building.

One thing I would like to say, the staff there have been helpful and I am now on a course at college in order to better myself and gain a qualification.
@ justjustice - Well said there, it is true that a lot of the vacancies on the Gov site are duplicated over and over giving a very false impression of job availability. It's a fact that the staff of these agencies have targets to meet and have to justify their existence, something I witnessed 20 years ago when I was registered with an agency who had me helping out in their office for a week. It was common practice to get the job section of the T&A (when it was pages thick) and call the companies advertising for staff in order to put forward likely candidates from their files, obviously not something they can do so much nowadays due to it all being contained within one page. @ johnh1 - So you think there is something to be achieved by visiting the Jobcentre on a daily basis!!! I think you should try visiting one and try out the facilities. Certainly a far cry from 20 and 30 years ago when the jobs were posted up on postcards and then you saw an adviser to apply for it. If you don't have an appointment or you are deemed too early you don't get past security and there are so few of the ATM type machines in there you would be hanging around for a considerable time, time which would be better spent elsewhere on a computer given that there are around 9,000 jobless registered at Eastbrook building. One thing I would like to say, the staff there have been helpful and I am now on a course at college in order to better myself and gain a qualification. Hecky Thump!!
  • Score: 2

3:50pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Makollig Jezvahted says...

What I want to know is when they will refuse to give jobseekers' allowance to those that make themselves unemployable by covering their face with tacky/obscene tattoos or turning up stinking of cannabis. Jobseekers my arrse!
What I want to know is when they will refuse to give jobseekers' allowance to those that make themselves unemployable by covering their face with tacky/obscene tattoos or turning up stinking of cannabis. Jobseekers my arrse! Makollig Jezvahted
  • Score: 4

4:17pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Class_War says...

Come on Andy2010, back to work, no time for slackers in UK plc.
Come on Andy2010, back to work, no time for slackers in UK plc. Class_War
  • Score: -1

4:21pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Class_War says...

George Osborne's new work scheme, the perversely titled 'Help To Work', is actually illegal and all Claimants would be well advised to refuse to participate. The UN's International Labour Organisation (ILO) defines Slavery as: "work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily", which perfectly describes Osborne's edict. No one should be forced against their will to work for no wage.
George Osborne's new work scheme, the perversely titled 'Help To Work', is actually illegal and all Claimants would be well advised to refuse to participate. The UN's International Labour Organisation (ILO) defines Slavery as: "work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily", which perfectly describes Osborne's edict. No one should be forced against their will to work for no wage. Class_War
  • Score: -5

4:24pm Tue 8 Apr 14

justjustice says...

Andy2010 wrote:
justjustice wrote:
Let's not forget that recruitment agencies are also supposed to find jobseekers jobs. So if there are so many jobs out there, and so many jobseekers, then what is happening?

Yes one can say most are not qualified for most positions; but how many people have actually looked at job postings? I've actually found one vacancy, it was for an admin assistant, the employer wanted someone with 10 YEARS of experience!!!!! Can you believe that!

Also let's not forget educational discrimination. An employer would hire an average person knowing that if they were offered a better paid job they would leave; but the employer will refuse to employ a graduate for fear that they would soon leave for a job better suited for them. The only difference is that one is a graduate the other is not, clear discrimination if you ask me.
The issue with Graduates harks back to the last Government when they pushed nearly all students in Uni to make things look better than what they are. What we are left with is people with near useless degrees in areas that dont interest them anyway.

Two weeks ago I personally interviewed someone for an junior role fresh out of uni with a degree in BioScience. I asked how this would apply to the role they applied for and they didnt have a clue. Asking what type of job was ideal they also didnt have a clue. Sorry but i would have thought studying for so many years you would have at least some idea of how you were going to use that degree in future.

Uni's should tighten their belts on applications and only accept the cream of the crop who have a clearly mapped out career plan rather than just anyone looking for the "uni" experience.

By the way that person actually got the job and doing well so far but personally wish career guidance and interview techniques was somehow taught to students as some graduates literally cant string a sentence together thinking their degree means they should be able to walk into any job
Although most people go to uni to gain an advantage to get into a specific sector, a few do it for personal interest, well they did when it was free.

But there you go you yourself, even though you hired the person, were discriminating them for their educational status. What were you worried about, that they would go off to another job within a year?
If so how is that any different from another person who you may hire who then get's offered a better salary for doing the same job at a rival company? They'd be off as well.

Having a degree (depending on what subject) will more than likely mean they person will be able to learn faster and get used to your company's procedure, as well as being able to process work faster.
I can tell you that myself, I have done some jobs where I was finished by Wednesday lunchtime, all previous employees with the same job would barely have the same workload done by Friday.

Having a degree does not mean they can walk into just any job, but that they would be more capable than some. Yet many employers refuse to employ them.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justjustice[/bold] wrote: Let's not forget that recruitment agencies are also supposed to find jobseekers jobs. So if there are so many jobs out there, and so many jobseekers, then what is happening? Yes one can say most are not qualified for most positions; but how many people have actually looked at job postings? I've actually found one vacancy, it was for an admin assistant, the employer wanted someone with 10 YEARS of experience!!!!! Can you believe that! Also let's not forget educational discrimination. An employer would hire an average person knowing that if they were offered a better paid job they would leave; but the employer will refuse to employ a graduate for fear that they would soon leave for a job better suited for them. The only difference is that one is a graduate the other is not, clear discrimination if you ask me.[/p][/quote]The issue with Graduates harks back to the last Government when they pushed nearly all students in Uni to make things look better than what they are. What we are left with is people with near useless degrees in areas that dont interest them anyway. Two weeks ago I personally interviewed someone for an junior role fresh out of uni with a degree in BioScience. I asked how this would apply to the role they applied for and they didnt have a clue. Asking what type of job was ideal they also didnt have a clue. Sorry but i would have thought studying for so many years you would have at least some idea of how you were going to use that degree in future. Uni's should tighten their belts on applications and only accept the cream of the crop who have a clearly mapped out career plan rather than just anyone looking for the "uni" experience. By the way that person actually got the job and doing well so far but personally wish career guidance and interview techniques was somehow taught to students as some graduates literally cant string a sentence together thinking their degree means they should be able to walk into any job[/p][/quote]Although most people go to uni to gain an advantage to get into a specific sector, a few do it for personal interest, well they did when it was free. But there you go you yourself, even though you hired the person, were discriminating them for their educational status. What were you worried about, that they would go off to another job within a year? If so how is that any different from another person who you may hire who then get's offered a better salary for doing the same job at a rival company? They'd be off as well. Having a degree (depending on what subject) will more than likely mean they person will be able to learn faster and get used to your company's procedure, as well as being able to process work faster. I can tell you that myself, I have done some jobs where I was finished by Wednesday lunchtime, all previous employees with the same job would barely have the same workload done by Friday. Having a degree does not mean they can walk into just any job, but that they would be more capable than some. Yet many employers refuse to employ them. justjustice
  • Score: 0

4:25pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Class_War says...

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION TO END ILLEGAL BENEFIT SANCTIONS:

https://you.38degree
s.org.uk/petitions/b
enefit-sanctions-mus
t-be-stopped-without
-exceptions-in-uk
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION TO END ILLEGAL BENEFIT SANCTIONS: https://you.38degree s.org.uk/petitions/b enefit-sanctions-mus t-be-stopped-without -exceptions-in-uk Class_War
  • Score: -9

4:42pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Andy2010 says...

justjustice wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
justjustice wrote:
Let's not forget that recruitment agencies are also supposed to find jobseekers jobs. So if there are so many jobs out there, and so many jobseekers, then what is happening?

Yes one can say most are not qualified for most positions; but how many people have actually looked at job postings? I've actually found one vacancy, it was for an admin assistant, the employer wanted someone with 10 YEARS of experience!!!!! Can you believe that!

Also let's not forget educational discrimination. An employer would hire an average person knowing that if they were offered a better paid job they would leave; but the employer will refuse to employ a graduate for fear that they would soon leave for a job better suited for them. The only difference is that one is a graduate the other is not, clear discrimination if you ask me.
The issue with Graduates harks back to the last Government when they pushed nearly all students in Uni to make things look better than what they are. What we are left with is people with near useless degrees in areas that dont interest them anyway.

Two weeks ago I personally interviewed someone for an junior role fresh out of uni with a degree in BioScience. I asked how this would apply to the role they applied for and they didnt have a clue. Asking what type of job was ideal they also didnt have a clue. Sorry but i would have thought studying for so many years you would have at least some idea of how you were going to use that degree in future.

Uni's should tighten their belts on applications and only accept the cream of the crop who have a clearly mapped out career plan rather than just anyone looking for the "uni" experience.

By the way that person actually got the job and doing well so far but personally wish career guidance and interview techniques was somehow taught to students as some graduates literally cant string a sentence together thinking their degree means they should be able to walk into any job
Although most people go to uni to gain an advantage to get into a specific sector, a few do it for personal interest, well they did when it was free.

But there you go you yourself, even though you hired the person, were discriminating them for their educational status. What were you worried about, that they would go off to another job within a year?
If so how is that any different from another person who you may hire who then get's offered a better salary for doing the same job at a rival company? They'd be off as well.

Having a degree (depending on what subject) will more than likely mean they person will be able to learn faster and get used to your company's procedure, as well as being able to process work faster.
I can tell you that myself, I have done some jobs where I was finished by Wednesday lunchtime, all previous employees with the same job would barely have the same workload done by Friday.

Having a degree does not mean they can walk into just any job, but that they would be more capable than some. Yet many employers refuse to employ them.
How was I discriminating ?

To ask someone attending an interview to explain their qualifications and what they mean to them or how to apply them to a different role through skill sets if perfectly normal and non discriminating.

What was I worried about? well nothing. The role of an interviewer is to ask questions and to try and ascertain is that person is suitable to do the job.

I seriously do not understand your post . You claim employers arent employing graduates because they think they will leave for a better job?

Thats complete and utter BS.

I think you think that having a degree makes you some sort of superior person. Well from my experience the best workers Ive ever employed (around 500 people over the years) have all come to the business without uni education's or degrees yet they had a drive to succeed and showed that well. Looking back now some of these people have gone on to be directors or various similar positions because of their sheer drive to succeed and improve themselves from day one.

From experience you dont tend to have this drive with Uni graduates. Some do but not as many.
[quote][p][bold]justjustice[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justjustice[/bold] wrote: Let's not forget that recruitment agencies are also supposed to find jobseekers jobs. So if there are so many jobs out there, and so many jobseekers, then what is happening? Yes one can say most are not qualified for most positions; but how many people have actually looked at job postings? I've actually found one vacancy, it was for an admin assistant, the employer wanted someone with 10 YEARS of experience!!!!! Can you believe that! Also let's not forget educational discrimination. An employer would hire an average person knowing that if they were offered a better paid job they would leave; but the employer will refuse to employ a graduate for fear that they would soon leave for a job better suited for them. The only difference is that one is a graduate the other is not, clear discrimination if you ask me.[/p][/quote]The issue with Graduates harks back to the last Government when they pushed nearly all students in Uni to make things look better than what they are. What we are left with is people with near useless degrees in areas that dont interest them anyway. Two weeks ago I personally interviewed someone for an junior role fresh out of uni with a degree in BioScience. I asked how this would apply to the role they applied for and they didnt have a clue. Asking what type of job was ideal they also didnt have a clue. Sorry but i would have thought studying for so many years you would have at least some idea of how you were going to use that degree in future. Uni's should tighten their belts on applications and only accept the cream of the crop who have a clearly mapped out career plan rather than just anyone looking for the "uni" experience. By the way that person actually got the job and doing well so far but personally wish career guidance and interview techniques was somehow taught to students as some graduates literally cant string a sentence together thinking their degree means they should be able to walk into any job[/p][/quote]Although most people go to uni to gain an advantage to get into a specific sector, a few do it for personal interest, well they did when it was free. But there you go you yourself, even though you hired the person, were discriminating them for their educational status. What were you worried about, that they would go off to another job within a year? If so how is that any different from another person who you may hire who then get's offered a better salary for doing the same job at a rival company? They'd be off as well. Having a degree (depending on what subject) will more than likely mean they person will be able to learn faster and get used to your company's procedure, as well as being able to process work faster. I can tell you that myself, I have done some jobs where I was finished by Wednesday lunchtime, all previous employees with the same job would barely have the same workload done by Friday. Having a degree does not mean they can walk into just any job, but that they would be more capable than some. Yet many employers refuse to employ them.[/p][/quote]How was I discriminating ? To ask someone attending an interview to explain their qualifications and what they mean to them or how to apply them to a different role through skill sets if perfectly normal and non discriminating. What was I worried about? well nothing. The role of an interviewer is to ask questions and to try and ascertain is that person is suitable to do the job. I seriously do not understand your post . You claim employers arent employing graduates because they think they will leave for a better job? Thats complete and utter BS. I think you think that having a degree makes you some sort of superior person. Well from my experience the best workers Ive ever employed (around 500 people over the years) have all come to the business without uni education's or degrees yet they had a drive to succeed and showed that well. Looking back now some of these people have gone on to be directors or various similar positions because of their sheer drive to succeed and improve themselves from day one. From experience you dont tend to have this drive with Uni graduates. Some do but not as many. Andy2010
  • Score: 2

5:04pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Makollig Jezvahted says...

Class_War wrote:
George Osborne's new work scheme, the perversely titled 'Help To Work', is actually illegal and all Claimants would be well advised to refuse to participate. The UN's International Labour Organisation (ILO) defines Slavery as: "work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily", which perfectly describes Osborne's edict. No one should be forced against their will to work for no wage.
By the same token, nobody is forced to claim Jobseekers Allowance. If you don't like it, don't claim. Or an even more revolutionary idea - get a job!
[quote][p][bold]Class_War[/bold] wrote: George Osborne's new work scheme, the perversely titled 'Help To Work', is actually illegal and all Claimants would be well advised to refuse to participate. The UN's International Labour Organisation (ILO) defines Slavery as: "work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily", which perfectly describes Osborne's edict. No one should be forced against their will to work for no wage.[/p][/quote]By the same token, nobody is forced to claim Jobseekers Allowance. If you don't like it, don't claim. Or an even more revolutionary idea - get a job! Makollig Jezvahted
  • Score: 6

5:14pm Tue 8 Apr 14

RollandSmoke says...

Andy2010 wrote:
justjustice wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
justjustice wrote:
Let's not forget that recruitment agencies are also supposed to find jobseekers jobs. So if there are so many jobs out there, and so many jobseekers, then what is happening?

Yes one can say most are not qualified for most positions; but how many people have actually looked at job postings? I've actually found one vacancy, it was for an admin assistant, the employer wanted someone with 10 YEARS of experience!!!!! Can you believe that!

Also let's not forget educational discrimination. An employer would hire an average person knowing that if they were offered a better paid job they would leave; but the employer will refuse to employ a graduate for fear that they would soon leave for a job better suited for them. The only difference is that one is a graduate the other is not, clear discrimination if you ask me.
The issue with Graduates harks back to the last Government when they pushed nearly all students in Uni to make things look better than what they are. What we are left with is people with near useless degrees in areas that dont interest them anyway.

Two weeks ago I personally interviewed someone for an junior role fresh out of uni with a degree in BioScience. I asked how this would apply to the role they applied for and they didnt have a clue. Asking what type of job was ideal they also didnt have a clue. Sorry but i would have thought studying for so many years you would have at least some idea of how you were going to use that degree in future.

Uni's should tighten their belts on applications and only accept the cream of the crop who have a clearly mapped out career plan rather than just anyone looking for the "uni" experience.

By the way that person actually got the job and doing well so far but personally wish career guidance and interview techniques was somehow taught to students as some graduates literally cant string a sentence together thinking their degree means they should be able to walk into any job
Although most people go to uni to gain an advantage to get into a specific sector, a few do it for personal interest, well they did when it was free.

But there you go you yourself, even though you hired the person, were discriminating them for their educational status. What were you worried about, that they would go off to another job within a year?
If so how is that any different from another person who you may hire who then get's offered a better salary for doing the same job at a rival company? They'd be off as well.

Having a degree (depending on what subject) will more than likely mean they person will be able to learn faster and get used to your company's procedure, as well as being able to process work faster.
I can tell you that myself, I have done some jobs where I was finished by Wednesday lunchtime, all previous employees with the same job would barely have the same workload done by Friday.

Having a degree does not mean they can walk into just any job, but that they would be more capable than some. Yet many employers refuse to employ them.
How was I discriminating ?

To ask someone attending an interview to explain their qualifications and what they mean to them or how to apply them to a different role through skill sets if perfectly normal and non discriminating.

What was I worried about? well nothing. The role of an interviewer is to ask questions and to try and ascertain is that person is suitable to do the job.

I seriously do not understand your post . You claim employers arent employing graduates because they think they will leave for a better job?

Thats complete and utter BS.

I think you think that having a degree makes you some sort of superior person. Well from my experience the best workers Ive ever employed (around 500 people over the years) have all come to the business without uni education's or degrees yet they had a drive to succeed and showed that well. Looking back now some of these people have gone on to be directors or various similar positions because of their sheer drive to succeed and improve themselves from day one.

From experience you dont tend to have this drive with Uni graduates. Some do but not as many.
Andy you've told me on many occasions that you only deal with executive roles so how can you say "Looking back now some of these people have gone on to be directors or various similar positions because of their sheer drive to succeed and improve themselves from day one". Whilst it's obvious you are trying to give the impression that these people worked their way up to these positions you cannot do so when these are the jobs you were interviewing for in the first place. There is some absolute BS being spoken in this thread and you as usual are the main culprit.
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justjustice[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]justjustice[/bold] wrote: Let's not forget that recruitment agencies are also supposed to find jobseekers jobs. So if there are so many jobs out there, and so many jobseekers, then what is happening? Yes one can say most are not qualified for most positions; but how many people have actually looked at job postings? I've actually found one vacancy, it was for an admin assistant, the employer wanted someone with 10 YEARS of experience!!!!! Can you believe that! Also let's not forget educational discrimination. An employer would hire an average person knowing that if they were offered a better paid job they would leave; but the employer will refuse to employ a graduate for fear that they would soon leave for a job better suited for them. The only difference is that one is a graduate the other is not, clear discrimination if you ask me.[/p][/quote]The issue with Graduates harks back to the last Government when they pushed nearly all students in Uni to make things look better than what they are. What we are left with is people with near useless degrees in areas that dont interest them anyway. Two weeks ago I personally interviewed someone for an junior role fresh out of uni with a degree in BioScience. I asked how this would apply to the role they applied for and they didnt have a clue. Asking what type of job was ideal they also didnt have a clue. Sorry but i would have thought studying for so many years you would have at least some idea of how you were going to use that degree in future. Uni's should tighten their belts on applications and only accept the cream of the crop who have a clearly mapped out career plan rather than just anyone looking for the "uni" experience. By the way that person actually got the job and doing well so far but personally wish career guidance and interview techniques was somehow taught to students as some graduates literally cant string a sentence together thinking their degree means they should be able to walk into any job[/p][/quote]Although most people go to uni to gain an advantage to get into a specific sector, a few do it for personal interest, well they did when it was free. But there you go you yourself, even though you hired the person, were discriminating them for their educational status. What were you worried about, that they would go off to another job within a year? If so how is that any different from another person who you may hire who then get's offered a better salary for doing the same job at a rival company? They'd be off as well. Having a degree (depending on what subject) will more than likely mean they person will be able to learn faster and get used to your company's procedure, as well as being able to process work faster. I can tell you that myself, I have done some jobs where I was finished by Wednesday lunchtime, all previous employees with the same job would barely have the same workload done by Friday. Having a degree does not mean they can walk into just any job, but that they would be more capable than some. Yet many employers refuse to employ them.[/p][/quote]How was I discriminating ? To ask someone attending an interview to explain their qualifications and what they mean to them or how to apply them to a different role through skill sets if perfectly normal and non discriminating. What was I worried about? well nothing. The role of an interviewer is to ask questions and to try and ascertain is that person is suitable to do the job. I seriously do not understand your post . You claim employers arent employing graduates because they think they will leave for a better job? Thats complete and utter BS. I think you think that having a degree makes you some sort of superior person. Well from my experience the best workers Ive ever employed (around 500 people over the years) have all come to the business without uni education's or degrees yet they had a drive to succeed and showed that well. Looking back now some of these people have gone on to be directors or various similar positions because of their sheer drive to succeed and improve themselves from day one. From experience you dont tend to have this drive with Uni graduates. Some do but not as many.[/p][/quote]Andy you've told me on many occasions that you only deal with executive roles so how can you say "Looking back now some of these people have gone on to be directors or various similar positions because of their sheer drive to succeed and improve themselves from day one". Whilst it's obvious you are trying to give the impression that these people worked their way up to these positions you cannot do so when these are the jobs you were interviewing for in the first place. There is some absolute BS being spoken in this thread and you as usual are the main culprit. RollandSmoke
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Tue 8 Apr 14

The Hoffster says...

Andy2010 wrote:
The Hoffster wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
Good

Surely securing a job when you unemployed is a full time job in itself so no-one can moan about having to attend a weekly update at the Job Centre.

I'll await the usual bleeding moaners brigade who will come on here when they emerge from their pits with a "there's no jobs" comments.

Well actually there is if you use an ounce of common sense and look around for 8 hours a day.
Can you tell us how an individual can spend 8 hours a day looking for a job?

In reality, it'll probably take no more than about 2 hours. I mean, assuming you have a few hard copies of your CV (as well as online), it's not gonna take a whole working day to apply for about 10 jobs.

And if the unemployed are required to job-hunt on a daily basis, how many can they apply for ?

If it's 10 a day, that mounts to about 50-60 a week. Are there going to be new ones advertised en masse every 7 days.

Yeah right.
Quite easy really. You target areas.

Yes apply online for as many as possible so yeah that's about an hour or so a day. The remainder of the time highlight all businesses in a certain area and walk around all these businesses handing in your cv.

Totally agree 90% of time this will be a complete waste of time but its odds game and the more you apply for and put your face out there the more chance of a job. If for example you targeted Bradford Centre one day, Leeds centre another day, Halifax another day then covered surrounding areas this would take up a "working week".

Sure someone will now post something about affording to travel to these places to do this but train fares don't cost that much (about as much as 10g of rolling tobacco) and you can do the rest on foot for free.

Also personally handing in your cv to a business adds a lot to your chance of being interviewed as companies or businesses can see from the outset that you have put in ground work and are driven without them even interviewing you.
Fair points, Andy. But who's going to be paying for all the bus/train fares to the places you've mentioned?

Thankfully I'm not signing on but if I were to, would the JC compensate me for those costs?
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Hoffster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: Good Surely securing a job when you unemployed is a full time job in itself so no-one can moan about having to attend a weekly update at the Job Centre. I'll await the usual bleeding moaners brigade who will come on here when they emerge from their pits with a "there's no jobs" comments. Well actually there is if you use an ounce of common sense and look around for 8 hours a day.[/p][/quote]Can you tell us how an individual can spend 8 hours a day looking for a job? In reality, it'll probably take no more than about 2 hours. I mean, assuming you have a few hard copies of your CV (as well as online), it's not gonna take a whole working day to apply for about 10 jobs. And if the unemployed are required to job-hunt on a daily basis, how many can they apply for ? If it's 10 a day, that mounts to about 50-60 a week. Are there going to be new ones advertised en masse every 7 days. Yeah right.[/p][/quote]Quite easy really. You target areas. Yes apply online for as many as possible so yeah that's about an hour or so a day. The remainder of the time highlight all businesses in a certain area and walk around all these businesses handing in your cv. Totally agree 90% of time this will be a complete waste of time but its odds game and the more you apply for and put your face out there the more chance of a job. If for example you targeted Bradford Centre one day, Leeds centre another day, Halifax another day then covered surrounding areas this would take up a "working week". Sure someone will now post something about affording to travel to these places to do this but train fares don't cost that much (about as much as 10g of rolling tobacco) and you can do the rest on foot for free. Also personally handing in your cv to a business adds a lot to your chance of being interviewed as companies or businesses can see from the outset that you have put in ground work and are driven without them even interviewing you.[/p][/quote]Fair points, Andy. But who's going to be paying for all the bus/train fares to the places you've mentioned? Thankfully I'm not signing on but if I were to, would the JC compensate me for those costs? The Hoffster
  • Score: 3

5:30pm Tue 8 Apr 14

bonoforpm says...

justjustice wrote:
TBH the entire job recruitment service should be a public service, not run by thousands of private companies.

It's bad enough having to dig through hundreds of job postings, but when you find out that there are dozens of duplicate postings, it just wastes your time and adds to your depression of not being able to find a job.

Some recruitment agencies have several offices in a region, and employer would ask not only some of those offices but also other recruitment agencies to help them find an employee for their needs.
So you can end up with 5 agency offices posting the same job on the government Jobsearch site; some will be identical wording, others a little different, but it's still listed separately as if this single vacancy is actually 5.

Not only that, some agencies post this vacancy every day, or every few days! So imagine that, a jobseeker thinking they are applying to a dozen vacancies when in fact there is just one! That's time wasted on other jobs they could have applied to!

The government schemes to help people are set up to only help those who left schools with no qualifications! Remember that graduate who was told to work at Poundland sweeping the floor? How can you expect a graduate to get trained for a job when the "training" schemes send them off to someone so mundane and useless to them?!

As for the country growing, well that's a joke, release the REAL figure of unemployment including those who are in training schemes and those who have signed off, and those who have had their JSA stopped for the utterly insane reasons the government has imposed in order to reduce benefit payments!
Agree completely, but I fear you are actually understating the duplication problem.

job posted on 1 website
x
job copied from that 1 website to many others
x
job copied from that many websites to even more websites
x
same jobs posted with different titles
x
same jobs posted day after day for months

I estimate that jobs are posted 100+ times minimum

On top of that there are the ghost jobs that never actually existed, but which are posted by agencies fishing for cvs to add to their books
[quote][p][bold]justjustice[/bold] wrote: TBH the entire job recruitment service should be a public service, not run by thousands of private companies. It's bad enough having to dig through hundreds of job postings, but when you find out that there are dozens of duplicate postings, it just wastes your time and adds to your depression of not being able to find a job. Some recruitment agencies have several offices in a region, and employer would ask not only some of those offices but also other recruitment agencies to help them find an employee for their needs. So you can end up with 5 agency offices posting the same job on the government Jobsearch site; some will be identical wording, others a little different, but it's still listed separately as if this single vacancy is actually 5. Not only that, some agencies post this vacancy every day, or every few days! So imagine that, a jobseeker thinking they are applying to a dozen vacancies when in fact there is just one! That's time wasted on other jobs they could have applied to! The government schemes to help people are set up to only help those who left schools with no qualifications! Remember that graduate who was told to work at Poundland sweeping the floor? How can you expect a graduate to get trained for a job when the "training" schemes send them off to someone so mundane and useless to them?! As for the country growing, well that's a joke, release the REAL figure of unemployment including those who are in training schemes and those who have signed off, and those who have had their JSA stopped for the utterly insane reasons the government has imposed in order to reduce benefit payments![/p][/quote]Agree completely, but I fear you are actually understating the duplication problem. job posted on 1 website x job copied from that 1 website to many others x job copied from that many websites to even more websites x same jobs posted with different titles x same jobs posted day after day for months I estimate that jobs are posted 100+ times minimum On top of that there are the ghost jobs that never actually existed, but which are posted by agencies fishing for cvs to add to their books bonoforpm
  • Score: 1

5:32pm Tue 8 Apr 14

RollandSmoke says...

Makollig Jezvahted wrote:
Class_War wrote:
George Osborne's new work scheme, the perversely titled 'Help To Work', is actually illegal and all Claimants would be well advised to refuse to participate. The UN's International Labour Organisation (ILO) defines Slavery as: "work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily", which perfectly describes Osborne's edict. No one should be forced against their will to work for no wage.
By the same token, nobody is forced to claim Jobseekers Allowance. If you don't like it, don't claim. Or an even more revolutionary idea - get a job!
Cheers for your revolutionary idea, a revolution is certainly needed and very much on the table if things carry on as they are. You are however an idiot. Here's a little article from 20th Feb entitled "New figures show unemployment is rising in Bradford"
http://www.thetelegr
aphandargus.co.uk/ne
ws/11022020.New_figu
res_show_unemploymen
t_is_rising_in_Bradf
ord/
And here one from 4th March entitled "New increase in the number of unemployed.
http://www.thetelegr
aphandargus.co.uk/ar
chive/2014/03/04/110
45422.New_increase_i
n_the_number_of_unem
ployed/
So idiot where are these jobs? "no-ones forced to claim Jobseeker's allowance" but if they don't they starve to death moron. You'd like that wouldn't you you sick ****.
[quote][p][bold]Makollig Jezvahted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Class_War[/bold] wrote: George Osborne's new work scheme, the perversely titled 'Help To Work', is actually illegal and all Claimants would be well advised to refuse to participate. The UN's International Labour Organisation (ILO) defines Slavery as: "work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily", which perfectly describes Osborne's edict. No one should be forced against their will to work for no wage.[/p][/quote]By the same token, nobody is forced to claim Jobseekers Allowance. If you don't like it, don't claim. Or an even more revolutionary idea - get a job![/p][/quote]Cheers for your revolutionary idea, a revolution is certainly needed and very much on the table if things carry on as they are. You are however an idiot. Here's a little article from 20th Feb entitled "New figures show unemployment is rising in Bradford" http://www.thetelegr aphandargus.co.uk/ne ws/11022020.New_figu res_show_unemploymen t_is_rising_in_Bradf ord/ And here one from 4th March entitled "New increase in the number of unemployed. http://www.thetelegr aphandargus.co.uk/ar chive/2014/03/04/110 45422.New_increase_i n_the_number_of_unem ployed/ So idiot where are these jobs? "no-ones forced to claim Jobseeker's allowance" but if they don't they starve to death moron. You'd like that wouldn't you you sick ****. RollandSmoke
  • Score: -4

6:24pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Class_War says...

The so-called Welfare Reforms are really a cull of the poor. Many have died since having Rightful entitlement to full State Benefits cruelly withdrawn. Thousands of already vulnerable people have been forced into utter destitution by this brutal, uncaring, and unelected Junta. This Government has blood on its hands, and it is the blood of the British Working Class. And then they wonder why there is such a need for Foodbanks! Morons!
The so-called Welfare Reforms are really a cull of the poor. Many have died since having Rightful entitlement to full State Benefits cruelly withdrawn. Thousands of already vulnerable people have been forced into utter destitution by this brutal, uncaring, and unelected Junta. This Government has blood on its hands, and it is the blood of the British Working Class. And then they wonder why there is such a need for Foodbanks! Morons! Class_War
  • Score: -1

7:30pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Class_War says...

Once again the Tories shaft the Workers. Make no mistake about it, this is Class war.
Once again the Tories shaft the Workers. Make no mistake about it, this is Class war. Class_War
  • Score: -3

8:16pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Class_War says...

Esther McVey should be aware that if my State Benefits are stopped then I shall have no option but to commit crime. Have you got that Esther?
Esther McVey should be aware that if my State Benefits are stopped then I shall have no option but to commit crime. Have you got that Esther? Class_War
  • Score: -5

8:18pm Tue 8 Apr 14

Class_War says...

Reply to T&A Comment:

Take your carrot and stick, and shove them right up your arse. Benefits are NOT a gift, they are a RIGHT!
Reply to T&A Comment: Take your carrot and stick, and shove them right up your arse. Benefits are NOT a gift, they are a RIGHT! Class_War
  • Score: -5

2:05am Wed 9 Apr 14

dellorri says...

Andy2010 wrote:
dellorri wrote:
All well and good you might say, what they've failed to tell you about in this article, are the NEW penalties they have also bought into being at the same time as these new rules to "empower" jobseekers.
Should anyone make a GENUINE mistake when filling in forms, thus giving wrong information, they WILL be fined £350. Bailliffs and debt collection agencies are to be employed to collect fines and debts and are to be given new powers to enable them to collect debts and seize assets to repay debts and fines. Those who will be among the number of new wave "criminals" include pensioners, who fail, even by GENUINE ERROR, to disclose their full income from private pensions. Measures taken by bailiffs etc. may include making people sell their privately owned homes to pay their fines or debts.
Source: The Daily Telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk/


news/politics/107471


22/Benefit-cheats-fa


ce-higher-fines-and-


losing-their-homes.h


tml
What rubbish
Just typical Telegraph scare mongering

If an error is made it will be put right.

Bailiffs cannot collect debts without a judgement and in order to get to that stage would take a hell of a lot of ignoring by the claimant.

Sell their house.....for gods sake thats a pretty dramatic statement. IN order for this to happen it would need the court to grant seizure which they are extremely reluctant to do and in 3rd party debts is almost unheard off unless they run in the hundreds of thousands.

You are just towing the telegraph line and scaremongering.

In essence all they are doing is exactly the same if for example you didnt pay your water bill. If you didnt you would be sent to court, judgement granted and then if you still refused to pay bailiffs "could" attend.

So no dont blame the DWP for this because if you are in essence you are blaming every single business in the UK that approaches the same stance on consumer "debts"
So andy as usual you say "Oh no my precious Tories wouldn't do that, it's just the papers printing scare stories." Perhaps you'll believe a DWP official press release then, hot off the gov.uk website. showing the latest penalties.
Yes including bailiffs used to collect debts, and the confiscation of high value items to pay back those debts, and in the case of working people who claim in work benefits, who may make an error or god forbid a fraudulent claim. 40% pf their wages at a time. an administrative fine increased from £2,000 to £5,000. But hey you don't believe me, or the ever so LEFT wing (LOL) Telegraph. so here's the DWP press release, maybe you'll believe the truth for a change, we don't all lie you know, some of us don't have the same privileges as the culture secretary.

www.gov.uk/governmen
t/news/new-measures-
to-protect-the-integ
rity-of-the-benefits
-system
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: All well and good you might say, what they've failed to tell you about in this article, are the NEW penalties they have also bought into being at the same time as these new rules to "empower" jobseekers. Should anyone make a GENUINE mistake when filling in forms, thus giving wrong information, they WILL be fined £350. Bailliffs and debt collection agencies are to be employed to collect fines and debts and are to be given new powers to enable them to collect debts and seize assets to repay debts and fines. Those who will be among the number of new wave "criminals" include pensioners, who fail, even by GENUINE ERROR, to disclose their full income from private pensions. Measures taken by bailiffs etc. may include making people sell their privately owned homes to pay their fines or debts. Source: The Daily Telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/politics/107471 22/Benefit-cheats-fa ce-higher-fines-and- losing-their-homes.h tml[/p][/quote]What rubbish Just typical Telegraph scare mongering If an error is made it will be put right. Bailiffs cannot collect debts without a judgement and in order to get to that stage would take a hell of a lot of ignoring by the claimant. Sell their house.....for gods sake thats a pretty dramatic statement. IN order for this to happen it would need the court to grant seizure which they are extremely reluctant to do and in 3rd party debts is almost unheard off unless they run in the hundreds of thousands. You are just towing the telegraph line and scaremongering. In essence all they are doing is exactly the same if for example you didnt pay your water bill. If you didnt you would be sent to court, judgement granted and then if you still refused to pay bailiffs "could" attend. So no dont blame the DWP for this because if you are in essence you are blaming every single business in the UK that approaches the same stance on consumer "debts"[/p][/quote]So andy as usual you say "Oh no my precious Tories wouldn't do that, it's just the papers printing scare stories." Perhaps you'll believe a DWP official press release then, hot off the gov.uk website. showing the latest penalties. Yes including bailiffs used to collect debts, and the confiscation of high value items to pay back those debts, and in the case of working people who claim in work benefits, who may make an error or god forbid a fraudulent claim. 40% pf their wages at a time. an administrative fine increased from £2,000 to £5,000. But hey you don't believe me, or the ever so LEFT wing (LOL) Telegraph. so here's the DWP press release, maybe you'll believe the truth for a change, we don't all lie you know, some of us don't have the same privileges as the culture secretary. www.gov.uk/governmen t/news/new-measures- to-protect-the-integ rity-of-the-benefits -system dellorri
  • Score: -2

2:05am Wed 9 Apr 14

dellorri says...

Andy2010 wrote:
dellorri wrote:
All well and good you might say, what they've failed to tell you about in this article, are the NEW penalties they have also bought into being at the same time as these new rules to "empower" jobseekers.
Should anyone make a GENUINE mistake when filling in forms, thus giving wrong information, they WILL be fined £350. Bailliffs and debt collection agencies are to be employed to collect fines and debts and are to be given new powers to enable them to collect debts and seize assets to repay debts and fines. Those who will be among the number of new wave "criminals" include pensioners, who fail, even by GENUINE ERROR, to disclose their full income from private pensions. Measures taken by bailiffs etc. may include making people sell their privately owned homes to pay their fines or debts.
Source: The Daily Telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk/


news/politics/107471


22/Benefit-cheats-fa


ce-higher-fines-and-


losing-their-homes.h


tml
What rubbish
Just typical Telegraph scare mongering

If an error is made it will be put right.

Bailiffs cannot collect debts without a judgement and in order to get to that stage would take a hell of a lot of ignoring by the claimant.

Sell their house.....for gods sake thats a pretty dramatic statement. IN order for this to happen it would need the court to grant seizure which they are extremely reluctant to do and in 3rd party debts is almost unheard off unless they run in the hundreds of thousands.

You are just towing the telegraph line and scaremongering.

In essence all they are doing is exactly the same if for example you didnt pay your water bill. If you didnt you would be sent to court, judgement granted and then if you still refused to pay bailiffs "could" attend.

So no dont blame the DWP for this because if you are in essence you are blaming every single business in the UK that approaches the same stance on consumer "debts"
So andy as usual you say "Oh no my precious Tories wouldn't do that, it's just the papers printing scare stories." Perhaps you'll believe a DWP official press release then, hot off the gov.uk website. showing the latest penalties.
Yes including bailiffs used to collect debts, and the confiscation of high value items to pay back those debts, and in the case of working people who claim in work benefits, who may make an error or god forbid a fraudulent claim. 40% pf their wages at a time. an administrative fine increased from £2,000 to £5,000. But hey you don't believe me, or the ever so LEFT wing (LOL) Telegraph. so here's the DWP press release, maybe you'll believe the truth for a change, we don't all lie you know, some of us don't have the same privileges as the culture secretary.

www.gov.uk/governmen
t/news/new-measures-
to-protect-the-integ
rity-of-the-benefits
-system
[quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: All well and good you might say, what they've failed to tell you about in this article, are the NEW penalties they have also bought into being at the same time as these new rules to "empower" jobseekers. Should anyone make a GENUINE mistake when filling in forms, thus giving wrong information, they WILL be fined £350. Bailliffs and debt collection agencies are to be employed to collect fines and debts and are to be given new powers to enable them to collect debts and seize assets to repay debts and fines. Those who will be among the number of new wave "criminals" include pensioners, who fail, even by GENUINE ERROR, to disclose their full income from private pensions. Measures taken by bailiffs etc. may include making people sell their privately owned homes to pay their fines or debts. Source: The Daily Telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/politics/107471 22/Benefit-cheats-fa ce-higher-fines-and- losing-their-homes.h tml[/p][/quote]What rubbish Just typical Telegraph scare mongering If an error is made it will be put right. Bailiffs cannot collect debts without a judgement and in order to get to that stage would take a hell of a lot of ignoring by the claimant. Sell their house.....for gods sake thats a pretty dramatic statement. IN order for this to happen it would need the court to grant seizure which they are extremely reluctant to do and in 3rd party debts is almost unheard off unless they run in the hundreds of thousands. You are just towing the telegraph line and scaremongering. In essence all they are doing is exactly the same if for example you didnt pay your water bill. If you didnt you would be sent to court, judgement granted and then if you still refused to pay bailiffs "could" attend. So no dont blame the DWP for this because if you are in essence you are blaming every single business in the UK that approaches the same stance on consumer "debts"[/p][/quote]So andy as usual you say "Oh no my precious Tories wouldn't do that, it's just the papers printing scare stories." Perhaps you'll believe a DWP official press release then, hot off the gov.uk website. showing the latest penalties. Yes including bailiffs used to collect debts, and the confiscation of high value items to pay back those debts, and in the case of working people who claim in work benefits, who may make an error or god forbid a fraudulent claim. 40% pf their wages at a time. an administrative fine increased from £2,000 to £5,000. But hey you don't believe me, or the ever so LEFT wing (LOL) Telegraph. so here's the DWP press release, maybe you'll believe the truth for a change, we don't all lie you know, some of us don't have the same privileges as the culture secretary. www.gov.uk/governmen t/news/new-measures- to-protect-the-integ rity-of-the-benefits -system dellorri
  • Score: -1

2:23am Wed 9 Apr 14

dellorri says...

Oops don't know why that posted twice, oh well, as you will see that press release was issued yesterday on the 8/4/2014. The very same day as the Telegraph issued IDS's new edicts, at the bottom of the press release it gives the current penalty of £50 for giving "negligently" incorrect information, or failing to notify a change of circumstances. That's pretty expensive for a mistake, or forgetting to send a form in on time, and believe me, that's what it amounts to. The proposal is to increase that penalty to £350. along with the other penalties mentioned.
You see Andy, I don't only go by the newspapers, I also go by what the government themselves say. Or perhaps like the rest of us, you see them as a bunch of lying theiving barstewards as well now?
Oops don't know why that posted twice, oh well, as you will see that press release was issued yesterday on the 8/4/2014. The very same day as the Telegraph issued IDS's new edicts, at the bottom of the press release it gives the current penalty of £50 for giving "negligently" incorrect information, or failing to notify a change of circumstances. That's pretty expensive for a mistake, or forgetting to send a form in on time, and believe me, that's what it amounts to. The proposal is to increase that penalty to £350. along with the other penalties mentioned. You see Andy, I don't only go by the newspapers, I also go by what the government themselves say. Or perhaps like the rest of us, you see them as a bunch of lying theiving barstewards as well now? dellorri
  • Score: -2

7:14am Wed 9 Apr 14

Andy2010 says...

dellorri wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
dellorri wrote:
All well and good you might say, what they've failed to tell you about in this article, are the NEW penalties they have also bought into being at the same time as these new rules to "empower" jobseekers.
Should anyone make a GENUINE mistake when filling in forms, thus giving wrong information, they WILL be fined £350. Bailliffs and debt collection agencies are to be employed to collect fines and debts and are to be given new powers to enable them to collect debts and seize assets to repay debts and fines. Those who will be among the number of new wave "criminals" include pensioners, who fail, even by GENUINE ERROR, to disclose their full income from private pensions. Measures taken by bailiffs etc. may include making people sell their privately owned homes to pay their fines or debts.
Source: The Daily Telegraph

www.telegraph.co.uk/



news/politics/107471



22/Benefit-cheats-fa



ce-higher-fines-and-



losing-their-homes.h



tml
What rubbish
Just typical Telegraph scare mongering

If an error is made it will be put right.

Bailiffs cannot collect debts without a judgement and in order to get to that stage would take a hell of a lot of ignoring by the claimant.

Sell their house.....for gods sake thats a pretty dramatic statement. IN order for this to happen it would need the court to grant seizure which they are extremely reluctant to do and in 3rd party debts is almost unheard off unless they run in the hundreds of thousands.

You are just towing the telegraph line and scaremongering.

In essence all they are doing is exactly the same if for example you didnt pay your water bill. If you didnt you would be sent to court, judgement granted and then if you still refused to pay bailiffs "could" attend.

So no dont blame the DWP for this because if you are in essence you are blaming every single business in the UK that approaches the same stance on consumer "debts"
So andy as usual you say "Oh no my precious Tories wouldn't do that, it's just the papers printing scare stories." Perhaps you'll believe a DWP official press release then, hot off the gov.uk website. showing the latest penalties.
Yes including bailiffs used to collect debts, and the confiscation of high value items to pay back those debts, and in the case of working people who claim in work benefits, who may make an error or god forbid a fraudulent claim. 40% pf their wages at a time. an administrative fine increased from £2,000 to £5,000. But hey you don't believe me, or the ever so LEFT wing (LOL) Telegraph. so here's the DWP press release, maybe you'll believe the truth for a change, we don't all lie you know, some of us don't have the same privileges as the culture secretary.

www.gov.uk/governmen

t/news/new-measures-

to-protect-the-integ

rity-of-the-benefits

-system
Precious Tories?

Im not a Tory, nor anything else. They are all the same no matter who is in power. Have you not realised this yet or are you to stupid.

Clearly as you didnt read my post.

This article you refer to relates to benefits CHEATS. not Jo public who forgets to include their postcode on a form for gods sakes. That Telegraph article did exactly as the Daily Mail would on other foot and just cherry picked soundbites and posted them

Lets have a look at a couple of things

up to 40% of benefits may be taken to repay stolen cash – so the money is returned quicker than it would be under the current rules - See the word there STOLEN meaning someone fraudulently claiming benefit

bailiffs used to confiscate high-value possessions from convicted benefit cheats - from CONVICTED BENEFIT CHEATS.

SO in essence all they are doing is ramping up the powers to collect what was STOLEN from the state. I personally dont see whats wrong with that as if you claim legally nothing will happen but say fro example you claim a load of benefits for being single whilst living with someone you shoudl rightfully pay these back.

Are you suggesting that convicted fraudsters shoudnt have to pay the money back? Seems that way.

As explained earlier which you obviously dont bother reading Bailiffs cannot collect debt without a court court order and in order to get to that stage you have to be stupid to ignore all the court papers sent to you.

Anyway I'll let you get back to your Telegraph.......

Any stories on the Union money we all pay out of our council tax being passed over to the Labour party in record amounts this year?

Nah thought not
[quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]dellorri[/bold] wrote: All well and good you might say, what they've failed to tell you about in this article, are the NEW penalties they have also bought into being at the same time as these new rules to "empower" jobseekers. Should anyone make a GENUINE mistake when filling in forms, thus giving wrong information, they WILL be fined £350. Bailliffs and debt collection agencies are to be employed to collect fines and debts and are to be given new powers to enable them to collect debts and seize assets to repay debts and fines. Those who will be among the number of new wave "criminals" include pensioners, who fail, even by GENUINE ERROR, to disclose their full income from private pensions. Measures taken by bailiffs etc. may include making people sell their privately owned homes to pay their fines or debts. Source: The Daily Telegraph www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/politics/107471 22/Benefit-cheats-fa ce-higher-fines-and- losing-their-homes.h tml[/p][/quote]What rubbish Just typical Telegraph scare mongering If an error is made it will be put right. Bailiffs cannot collect debts without a judgement and in order to get to that stage would take a hell of a lot of ignoring by the claimant. Sell their house.....for gods sake thats a pretty dramatic statement. IN order for this to happen it would need the court to grant seizure which they are extremely reluctant to do and in 3rd party debts is almost unheard off unless they run in the hundreds of thousands. You are just towing the telegraph line and scaremongering. In essence all they are doing is exactly the same if for example you didnt pay your water bill. If you didnt you would be sent to court, judgement granted and then if you still refused to pay bailiffs "could" attend. So no dont blame the DWP for this because if you are in essence you are blaming every single business in the UK that approaches the same stance on consumer "debts"[/p][/quote]So andy as usual you say "Oh no my precious Tories wouldn't do that, it's just the papers printing scare stories." Perhaps you'll believe a DWP official press release then, hot off the gov.uk website. showing the latest penalties. Yes including bailiffs used to collect debts, and the confiscation of high value items to pay back those debts, and in the case of working people who claim in work benefits, who may make an error or god forbid a fraudulent claim. 40% pf their wages at a time. an administrative fine increased from £2,000 to £5,000. But hey you don't believe me, or the ever so LEFT wing (LOL) Telegraph. so here's the DWP press release, maybe you'll believe the truth for a change, we don't all lie you know, some of us don't have the same privileges as the culture secretary. www.gov.uk/governmen t/news/new-measures- to-protect-the-integ rity-of-the-benefits -system[/p][/quote]Precious Tories? Im not a Tory, nor anything else. They are all the same no matter who is in power. Have you not realised this yet or are you to stupid. Clearly as you didnt read my post. This article you refer to relates to benefits CHEATS. not Jo public who forgets to include their postcode on a form for gods sakes. That Telegraph article did exactly as the Daily Mail would on other foot and just cherry picked soundbites and posted them Lets have a look at a couple of things up to 40% of benefits may be taken to repay stolen cash – so the money is returned quicker than it would be under the current rules - See the word there STOLEN meaning someone fraudulently claiming benefit bailiffs used to confiscate high-value possessions from convicted benefit cheats - from CONVICTED BENEFIT CHEATS. SO in essence all they are doing is ramping up the powers to collect what was STOLEN from the state. I personally dont see whats wrong with that as if you claim legally nothing will happen but say fro example you claim a load of benefits for being single whilst living with someone you shoudl rightfully pay these back. Are you suggesting that convicted fraudsters shoudnt have to pay the money back? Seems that way. As explained earlier which you obviously dont bother reading Bailiffs cannot collect debt without a court court order and in order to get to that stage you have to be stupid to ignore all the court papers sent to you. Anyway I'll let you get back to your Telegraph....... Any stories on the Union money we all pay out of our council tax being passed over to the Labour party in record amounts this year? Nah thought not Andy2010
  • Score: 0

9:53am Wed 9 Apr 14

Andy2010 says...

Class_War wrote:
Esther McVey should be aware that if my State Benefits are stopped then I shall have no option but to commit crime. Have you got that Esther?
Or and heres a radical idea

You could always go work for some money?

Incase you find that confusing

http://www.oxforddic
tionaries.com/defini
tion/english/workt.
[quote][p][bold]Class_War[/bold] wrote: Esther McVey should be aware that if my State Benefits are stopped then I shall have no option but to commit crime. Have you got that Esther?[/p][/quote]Or and heres a radical idea You could always go work for some money? Incase you find that confusing http://www.oxforddic tionaries.com/defini tion/english/workt. Andy2010
  • Score: 0

9:57am Wed 9 Apr 14

Andy2010 says...

Class_War wrote:
Reply to T&A Comment:

Take your carrot and stick, and shove them right up your arse. Benefits are NOT a gift, they are a RIGHT!
Indeed they are but this was formed on the basis that the workers and businesses pay tax so that you can keep your "rights"

Imagine if everyone adopted this attitude and wanted to claim their "right". No money would be paid in so your rightful benefits would be non existent.

You havent really thought this through have you "class war"
[quote][p][bold]Class_War[/bold] wrote: Reply to T&A Comment: Take your carrot and stick, and shove them right up your arse. Benefits are NOT a gift, they are a RIGHT![/p][/quote]Indeed they are but this was formed on the basis that the workers and businesses pay tax so that you can keep your "rights" Imagine if everyone adopted this attitude and wanted to claim their "right". No money would be paid in so your rightful benefits would be non existent. You havent really thought this through have you "class war" Andy2010
  • Score: 3

10:03am Wed 9 Apr 14

Andy2010 says...

The Hoffster wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
The Hoffster wrote:
Andy2010 wrote:
Good

Surely securing a job when you unemployed is a full time job in itself so no-one can moan about having to attend a weekly update at the Job Centre.

I'll await the usual bleeding moaners brigade who will come on here when they emerge from their pits with a "there's no jobs" comments.

Well actually there is if you use an ounce of common sense and look around for 8 hours a day.
Can you tell us how an individual can spend 8 hours a day looking for a job?

In reality, it'll probably take no more than about 2 hours. I mean, assuming you have a few hard copies of your CV (as well as online), it's not gonna take a whole working day to apply for about 10 jobs.

And if the unemployed are required to job-hunt on a daily basis, how many can they apply for ?

If it's 10 a day, that mounts to about 50-60 a week. Are there going to be new ones advertised en masse every 7 days.

Yeah right.
Quite easy really. You target areas.

Yes apply online for as many as possible so yeah that's about an hour or so a day. The remainder of the time highlight all businesses in a certain area and walk around all these businesses handing in your cv.

Totally agree 90% of time this will be a complete waste of time but its odds game and the more you apply for and put your face out there the more chance of a job. If for example you targeted Bradford Centre one day, Leeds centre another day, Halifax another day then covered surrounding areas this would take up a "working week".

Sure someone will now post something about affording to travel to these places to do this but train fares don't cost that much (about as much as 10g of rolling tobacco) and you can do the rest on foot for free.

Also personally handing in your cv to a business adds a lot to your chance of being interviewed as companies or businesses can see from the outset that you have put in ground work and are driven without them even interviewing you.
Fair points, Andy. But who's going to be paying for all the bus/train fares to the places you've mentioned?

Thankfully I'm not signing on but if I were to, would the JC compensate me for those costs?
They should compensate you

In fact the DWP shoudl send a limo around to your house and escort you around all the time whilst serving you caviar and champagne in your search for employment. Hell why dont they just pick a cv up from you, go out and find you a job and then report back to you to see if thats acceptable and you accept. if not they shoudl carry on trying.

How very dare the DWP ask people to look for jobs on their own....the bleeding cheek of it. And to ask you to pay for transport to a town centre (about £4) when that money could be spent on Golden Virginia, Rizlas and weed.

I dont know how they have the nerve

Its all ssssoooooo unfair that we have to take some responsibility and look after ourselves....

I WANT MY MUMMY
[quote][p][bold]The Hoffster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Hoffster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy2010[/bold] wrote: Good Surely securing a job when you unemployed is a full time job in itself so no-one can moan about having to attend a weekly update at the Job Centre. I'll await the usual bleeding moaners brigade who will come on here when they emerge from their pits with a "there's no jobs" comments. Well actually there is if you use an ounce of common sense and look around for 8 hours a day.[/p][/quote]Can you tell us how an individual can spend 8 hours a day looking for a job? In reality, it'll probably take no more than about 2 hours. I mean, assuming you have a few hard copies of your CV (as well as online), it's not gonna take a whole working day to apply for about 10 jobs. And if the unemployed are required to job-hunt on a daily basis, how many can they apply for ? If it's 10 a day, that mounts to about 50-60 a week. Are there going to be new ones advertised en masse every 7 days. Yeah right.[/p][/quote]Quite easy really. You target areas. Yes apply online for as many as possible so yeah that's about an hour or so a day. The remainder of the time highlight all businesses in a certain area and walk around all these businesses handing in your cv. Totally agree 90% of time this will be a complete waste of time but its odds game and the more you apply for and put your face out there the more chance of a job. If for example you targeted Bradford Centre one day, Leeds centre another day, Halifax another day then covered surrounding areas this would take up a "working week". Sure someone will now post something about affording to travel to these places to do this but train fares don't cost that much (about as much as 10g of rolling tobacco) and you can do the rest on foot for free. Also personally handing in your cv to a business adds a lot to your chance of being interviewed as companies or businesses can see from the outset that you have put in ground work and are driven without them even interviewing you.[/p][/quote]Fair points, Andy. But who's going to be paying for all the bus/train fares to the places you've mentioned? Thankfully I'm not signing on but if I were to, would the JC compensate me for those costs?[/p][/quote]They should compensate you In fact the DWP shoudl send a limo around to your house and escort you around all the time whilst serving you caviar and champagne in your search for employment. Hell why dont they just pick a cv up from you, go out and find you a job and then report back to you to see if thats acceptable and you accept. if not they shoudl carry on trying. How very dare the DWP ask people to look for jobs on their own....the bleeding cheek of it. And to ask you to pay for transport to a town centre (about £4) when that money could be spent on Golden Virginia, Rizlas and weed. I dont know how they have the nerve Its all ssssoooooo unfair that we have to take some responsibility and look after ourselves.... I WANT MY MUMMY Andy2010
  • Score: 3

5:14pm Wed 9 Apr 14

Class_War says...

Who does Esther McVey think she is?

http://johnnyvoid.wo
rdpress.com/2014/04/
07/who-the-****-does
-esther-mcvey-think-
she-is/
Who does Esther McVey think she is? http://johnnyvoid.wo rdpress.com/2014/04/ 07/who-the-****-does -esther-mcvey-think- she-is/ Class_War
  • Score: 0

9:24pm Sat 12 Apr 14

Makollig Jezvahted says...

RollandSmoke wrote:
Makollig Jezvahted wrote:
Class_War wrote:
George Osborne's new work scheme, the perversely titled 'Help To Work', is actually illegal and all Claimants would be well advised to refuse to participate. The UN's International Labour Organisation (ILO) defines Slavery as: "work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily", which perfectly describes Osborne's edict. No one should be forced against their will to work for no wage.
By the same token, nobody is forced to claim Jobseekers Allowance. If you don't like it, don't claim. Or an even more revolutionary idea - get a job!
Cheers for your revolutionary idea, a revolution is certainly needed and very much on the table if things carry on as they are. You are however an idiot. Here's a little article from 20th Feb entitled "New figures show unemployment is rising in Bradford"
http://www.thetelegr

aphandargus.co.uk/ne

ws/11022020.New_figu

res_show_unemploymen

t_is_rising_in_Bradf

ord/
And here one from 4th March entitled "New increase in the number of unemployed.
http://www.thetelegr

aphandargus.co.uk/ar

chive/2014/03/04/110

45422.New_increase_i

n_the_number_of_unem

ployed/
So idiot where are these jobs? "no-ones forced to claim Jobseeker's allowance" but if they don't they starve to death moron. You'd like that wouldn't you you sick ****.
Ooh! I'm an idiot, a moron and a ****. All that for suggesting you get a job. No wonder this country's in the state it is if we give benefits to losers like you who will look for any excuse why you can't work. Relocate (preferably overseas/to the moon), retrain - don't just give in as soon as the job market's not perfect. Numbers of unemployed going up doesn't actually mean there are no jobs, you know? It just means it's a little harder (as in you have to put in more effort) to find something.
[quote][p][bold]RollandSmoke[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Makollig Jezvahted[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Class_War[/bold] wrote: George Osborne's new work scheme, the perversely titled 'Help To Work', is actually illegal and all Claimants would be well advised to refuse to participate. The UN's International Labour Organisation (ILO) defines Slavery as: "work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of a penalty and for which the person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily", which perfectly describes Osborne's edict. No one should be forced against their will to work for no wage.[/p][/quote]By the same token, nobody is forced to claim Jobseekers Allowance. If you don't like it, don't claim. Or an even more revolutionary idea - get a job![/p][/quote]Cheers for your revolutionary idea, a revolution is certainly needed and very much on the table if things carry on as they are. You are however an idiot. Here's a little article from 20th Feb entitled "New figures show unemployment is rising in Bradford" http://www.thetelegr aphandargus.co.uk/ne ws/11022020.New_figu res_show_unemploymen t_is_rising_in_Bradf ord/ And here one from 4th March entitled "New increase in the number of unemployed. http://www.thetelegr aphandargus.co.uk/ar chive/2014/03/04/110 45422.New_increase_i n_the_number_of_unem ployed/ So idiot where are these jobs? "no-ones forced to claim Jobseeker's allowance" but if they don't they starve to death moron. You'd like that wouldn't you you sick ****.[/p][/quote]Ooh! I'm an idiot, a moron and a ****. All that for suggesting you get a job. No wonder this country's in the state it is if we give benefits to losers like you who will look for any excuse why you can't work. Relocate (preferably overseas/to the moon), retrain - don't just give in as soon as the job market's not perfect. Numbers of unemployed going up doesn't actually mean there are no jobs, you know? It just means it's a little harder (as in you have to put in more effort) to find something. Makollig Jezvahted
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree