God help you if you're unemployed.

frank_begbie · Post by **frank_begbie** » 20 Nov 2012, 15:02

Big Brother is alive and well and currently residing in Job Centres across the country.

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/11 ... /#comments

extractorfan · Post by **extractorfan** » 20 Nov 2012, 15:17

wowzers, I wonder how much that site cost (the job one)!

bloody awful.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 20 Nov 2012, 15:24

https://jobsearch.direct.gov.uk/registe ... fhome.aspx

Lovely. Brings back so many memories.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 20 Nov 2012, 16:28

To be honest I found the website ok. It seemed to be pretty fast loading on my slow internet.

But it's future direction is pretty obvious. Privitisation and an automatic linking between your CV and jobs. So no excuse not to apply for certain jobs, even if in the real world they're absolutely not suitable.

And: compulsory 35 hours/week looking for work?!!!

Glad I'm not signed up anymore. Loosing out financially but far more stress-free. It's going to get worse.

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 20 Nov 2012, 20:10

I don't see a problem here.

Applying for a job you are not suited for will result in you not getting that job. There is no cost in applying and it takes little time if you aren't that bothered about the result.

I also don't see where the 'spying' comes in. The JC staff always used to demand a record of job seeker activity that included details of jobs applied for - what's changed?

As for the link with Monster it seems to give access to all vacancies already on Monster besides a few others.

frank_begbie · Post by **frank_begbie** » 20 Nov 2012, 22:10

JavaScriptDonkey wrote:I don't see a problem here.

Applying for a job you are not suited for will result in you not getting that job. There is no cost in applying and it takes little time if you aren't that bothered about the result.

I also don't see where the 'spying' comes in. The JC staff always used to demand a record of job seeker activity that included details of jobs applied for - what's changed?

As for the link with Monster it seems to give access to all vacancies already on Monster besides a few others.

It must be those massive blinkers.

Kentucky Fried Panda · Post by **Kentucky Fried Panda** » 22 Nov 2012, 16:49

Why would someone's control freak invisible friend help them if they were unemployed?

extractorfan · Post by **extractorfan** » 22 Nov 2012, 16:53

Kentucky Fried Panda wrote:Why would someone's control freak invisible friend help them if they were unemployed?

Because if he didn't the sadistic invisible enemy of said control freak would find work for them

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 22 Nov 2012, 19:29

extractorfan wrote:
Kentucky Fried Panda wrote:Why would someone's control freak invisible friend help them if they were unemployed?
Because if he didn't the sadistic invisible enemy of said control freak would find work for them

What are you two banging on about?

I spent a few years living on benefits and it is no picnic. Sometimes you need a bit of help and motivation to find a job.

I never resented proving I was looking for work - why would anyone?

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 22 Nov 2012, 19:31

frank_begbie wrote:
It must be those massive blinkers.

Then cast the scales from my eyes. What exactly is the problem with this?

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 23 Nov 2012, 18:44

Sanctions

The computer flags matches between your criteria and jobs advertised. Why didn't you apply for these jobs? They match your criteria. You don't really want a job, do you? The staff do have targets, even though my advisor denied it at the time.

So, apply for the job anyway like you said JSD. But does this mean you should apply for all the jobs, just to cover yourself.

The web-site has a host of other problems and concerns too; privacy concerns for example.

And what about the future? Universal credit and a National ID database. Online tracking. Completely internet based. Automatic application of the job by the computer. In the future, the job seeker won't even have to apply for him/herself. It'll match things up automatically. And if it's not suitable, sanctions await. Slavery?

And what about this 35 hr/week work search requirement? Have to wait and see how that requirement is interpreted.

Following their thought-processes. This country has to compete globally. We have to become more competitive. We have to reduce wage costs, so we can compete with China, Vietnam and North Korea(!). Which would be fine, if living costs were similarly reduced. This website is all about increasing competition among job-seekers with the aim of reducing wages for the benefit of private business.

Some of the stuff being said about benefit claimants are a disgrace. IDS (who has failed in everything he's done) is one scumbag among many!

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 23 Nov 2012, 21:23

Slavery? I think you're ranting there.

Employers need good employees. Most jobs need more than just drones and many employers accept the reality of paying to keep the skills they need to thrive.

The JC already had (crap) online database of vacancies that their system used to occasionally throw up job matches from. Most unsuitable as the db was so small. Now that is is bigger and better it might actually start to generate useful hits.

You talk as though the un-employed don't want to work.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 23 Nov 2012, 21:41

There's an unfortunate side effect of job centres insisting that the unemployed demonstrate that the are putting effort into searching for a job.

My daughter runs a very small business. She was seeking an employee. Now in an ideal world the best job advert attracts just one applicant - the right one. Unfortunately when she placed an advertisement she received over 60 applications. Most of these were completely unsuitable and only applied to fill their job-seeker's quota. It took a lot of time and trouble sorting them out to find the one right applicant, who was given the job. As a responsible and ethical employer she thought it only right to write to each of the unsuccessful applicants to tell them that and why they were unsuccessful. A not inconsiderable cost in time and postage stamps for a micro-business.

Snail · Post by **Snail** » 23 Nov 2012, 22:36

I did have a mini rant. Just think that some choice when choosing a job is important. Nobody should be forced into a particular job just to fill some quota. Not when the stakes are so high.

If I have to rely on benefits, and forced into a minimum wage job without having any say. Then I think the slavery comparision isn't that ott. Afterall, I can hardly leave and walk into another job like my dad could do. Nor claim benefits for a time I believe.

Like most unemployed,, I wanted to find a job. Unfortunately, they made the whole thing very stressful.

Biff: never thought about it much from a employer perspective. Must be a nightmare for sme's too.

They should put some effort into creating jobs. that'll help both parties.

JavaScriptDonkey · Post by **JavaScriptDonkey** » 24 Nov 2012, 08:32

biffvernon wrote:A not inconsiderable cost in time and postage stamps for a micro-business.

She received 60 CVs in paper by mail?

Where do you live Biff? In the 50s?