Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they 
advertise?????????

Niteawk wrote:
> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they 
> advertise?????????
> 

I'd have thought so.

No-one advertises anywhere that they don't expect their intended 
audience to be.

You could try stop being a claimant - most people find that a most 
satisfactory way of getting the dole of their backs.
-- 
Robbie

"Robbie"  wrote in message 
news:5v6hjtF1knq0eU1@mid.individual.net...
> Niteawk wrote:
>> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they 
>> advertise?????????
>>
>
> I'd have thought so.
>
> No-one advertises anywhere that they don't expect their intended audience 
> to be.
>
> You could try stop being a claimant - most people find that a most 
> satisfactory way of getting the dole of their backs.


In this case Nighthawk may have a point though in that the Jobcentre will 
get as many people as possible to apply regardless of their suitability for 
the post advertised.  I have been told to apply for jobs I had no chance of 
getting "just for the experience" of applying and interviews etc.

I have to agree with Robbie's second point as to the best way of getting the 
dole off your back.  Fortunately I am now retired so can give the Jobcentre 
the middle finger with impunity as I walk past.

Bill

Bill wrote:
> "Robbie"  wrote in message 
> news:5v6hjtF1knq0eU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Niteawk wrote:
>>> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they 
>>> advertise?????????
>>>
>> I'd have thought so.
>>
>> No-one advertises anywhere that they don't expect their intended audience 
>> to be.
>>
>> You could try stop being a claimant - most people find that a most 
>> satisfactory way of getting the dole of their backs.
> 
> 
> In this case Nighthawk may have a point though in that the Jobcentre will 
> get as many people as possible to apply regardless of their suitability for 
> the post advertised.  I have been told to apply for jobs I had no chance of 
> getting "just for the experience" of applying and interviews etc.
> 
> I have to agree with Robbie's second point as to the best way of getting the 
> dole off your back.  Fortunately I am now retired so can give the Jobcentre 
> the middle finger with impunity as I walk past.
> 
> Bill 
> 

If too many people are encouraged to apply for a job then the employer 
would soon get fed up of using the services of the JC unless they just 
bin applications without really reading them. That said, after a while 
(as in someone being unemployed for a while) the JC can, and will, begin 
to "persuade" people that they should be applying for jobs x, y or z. 
The irony is, by then, the person being forced to apply is usually the 
one of the applicants who are the least employable as they have normally 
been out of work for so long.


-- 
Robbie

"Robbie"  wrote in message 
news:5v6k32F1klgvjU1@mid.individual.net...
> Bill wrote:
>> "Robbie"  wrote in message 
>> news:5v6hjtF1knq0eU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> Niteawk wrote:
>>>> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they 
>>>> advertise?????????
>>>>
>>> I'd have thought so.
>>>
>>> No-one advertises anywhere that they don't expect their intended 
>>> audience to be.
>>>
>>> You could try stop being a claimant - most people find that a most 
>>> satisfactory way of getting the dole of their backs.
>>
>>
>> In this case Nighthawk may have a point though in that the Jobcentre will 
>> get as many people as possible to apply regardless of their suitability 
>> for the post advertised.  I have been told to apply for jobs I had no 
>> chance of getting "just for the experience" of applying and interviews 
>> etc.
>>
>> I have to agree with Robbie's second point as to the best way of getting 
>> the dole off your back.  Fortunately I am now retired so can give the 
>> Jobcentre the middle finger with impunity as I walk past.
>>
>> Bill
>
> If too many people are encouraged to apply for a job then the employer 
> would soon get fed up of using the services of the JC unless they just bin 
> applications without really reading them. That said, after a while (as in 
> someone being unemployed for a while) the JC can, and will, begin to 
> "persuade" people that they should be applying for jobs x, y or z. The 
> irony is, by then, the person being forced to apply is usually the one of 
> the applicants who are the least employable as they have normally been out 
> of work for so long.
>
>

I have had letters from employers asking me not to apply again as the 
company does not have the resources to waste processing unsuitable 
applications, and they need someone suitable urgently etc.

Ah fuck it, I should have wrote to them and told them it was not me wasting 
their precious time, but New Deal. The last time I told an employer that, 
they phoned the JC to complain and I was as usual, threatened with yet more 
sanctions, so I dont do it now as a rule :)

You are quite right about being forced to apply and being the least 
employable, its being forced to apply that has created the unemployable 
situation IMO. No one likes being ordered about, least of all being told 
what jobs you MUST apply for, once that happens, lines are drawn and it 
becomes a battle. You cannot get away with ordering people about, it never 
works.

Niteawk wrote:
> 
> "Robbie"  wrote in message 
> news:5v6k32F1klgvjU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Bill wrote:
>>> "Robbie"  wrote in message 
>>> news:5v6hjtF1knq0eU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Niteawk wrote:
>>>>> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they 
>>>>> advertise?????????
>>>>>
>>>> I'd have thought so.
>>>>
>>>> No-one advertises anywhere that they don't expect their intended 
>>>> audience to be.
>>>>
>>>> You could try stop being a claimant - most people find that a most 
>>>> satisfactory way of getting the dole of their backs.
>>>
>>>
>>> In this case Nighthawk may have a point though in that the Jobcentre 
>>> will get as many people as possible to apply regardless of their 
>>> suitability for the post advertised.  I have been told to apply for 
>>> jobs I had no chance of getting "just for the experience" of applying 
>>> and interviews etc.
>>>
>>> I have to agree with Robbie's second point as to the best way of 
>>> getting the dole off your back.  Fortunately I am now retired so can 
>>> give the Jobcentre the middle finger with impunity as I walk past.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> If too many people are encouraged to apply for a job then the employer 
>> would soon get fed up of using the services of the JC unless they just 
>> bin applications without really reading them. That said, after a while 
>> (as in someone being unemployed for a while) the JC can, and will, 
>> begin to "persuade" people that they should be applying for jobs x, y 
>> or z. The irony is, by then, the person being forced to apply is 
>> usually the one of the applicants who are the least employable as they 
>> have normally been out of work for so long.
>>
>>
> 
> I have had letters from employers asking me not to apply again as the 
> company does not have the resources to waste processing unsuitable 
> applications, and they need someone suitable urgently etc.
> 
> Ah fuck it, I should have wrote to them and told them it was not me 
> wasting their precious time, but New Deal. The last time I told an 
> employer that, they phoned the JC to complain and I was as usual, 
> threatened with yet more sanctions, so I dont do it now as a rule :)
> 
> You are quite right about being forced to apply and being the least 
> employable, its being forced to apply that has created the unemployable 
> situation IMO. No one likes being ordered about, least of all being told 
> what jobs you MUST apply for, once that happens, lines are drawn and it 
> becomes a battle. You cannot get away with ordering people about, it 
> never works.

I tend not to put myself in positions where I'm likely to be ordered 
around - or at the very least I'm getting a decent pay packet out of it ;)

-- 
Robbie

On 16 Jan, 16:37, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>
> news:5v6k32F1klgvjU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill wrote:
> >> "Robbie"  wrote in message
> >>news:5v6hjtF1knq0eU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>> Niteawk wrote:
> >>>> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they
> >>>> advertise?????????
>
> >>> I'd have thought so.
>
> >>> No-one advertises anywhere that they don't expect their intended
> >>> audience to be.
>
> >>> You could try stop being a claimant - most people find that a most
> >>> satisfactory way of getting the dole of their backs.
>
> >> In this case Nighthawk may have a point though in that the Jobcentre will
> >> get as many people as possible to apply regardless of their suitability> >> for the post advertised.  I have been told to apply for jobs I had no> >> chance of getting "just for the experience" of applying and interviews
> >> etc.
>
> >> I have to agree with Robbie's second point as to the best way of getting
> >> the dole off your back.  Fortunately I am now retired so can give the> >> Jobcentre the middle finger with impunity as I walk past.
>
> >> Bill
>
> > If too many people are encouraged to apply for a job then the employer
> > would soon get fed up of using the services of the JC unless they just bin
> > applications without really reading them. That said, after a while (as in
> > someone being unemployed for a while) the JC can, and will, begin to
> > "persuade" people that they should be applying for jobs x, y or z. The
> > irony is, by then, the person being forced to apply is usually the one of
> > the applicants who are the least employable as they have normally been out
> > of work for so long.
>
> I have had letters from employers asking me not to apply again as the
> company does not have the resources to waste processing unsuitable
> applications, and they need someone suitable urgently etc.
>
> Ah fuck it, I should have wrote to them and told them it was not me wasting
> their precious time, but New Deal. The last time I told an employer that,
> they phoned the JC to complain and I was as usual, threatened with yet more
> sanctions, so I dont do it now as a rule :)
>
> You are quite right about being forced to apply and being the least
> employable, its being forced to apply that has created the unemployable
> situation IMO. No one likes being ordered about, least of all being told
> what jobs you MUST apply for, once that happens, lines are drawn and it
> becomes a battle. You cannot get away with ordering people about, it never> works.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Interesting how ytou have had letters from employers like that.
Many employers simply have a policy of only notifying people to attend
interview and not the rest, in order to save resources.
Still, nice they at least wrote to you asking you not to apply again.
Must remember not to apply for those employers myself......

How exactly has being forced to apply created the unemployable
situation? I'd have thought time itself would have seen to that -
someone who hasn't worked for a few years not having as good a track
record as someone who only finished work a few months back.

Not sure about people not liking being ordered about. Tell us - have
you ever actually had a job?
Employers seem very keen on ordering their staff about - though like
the armed forces, they phrase orders as requests.

"You cannot get away with ordering people about, it never
works. "

Its only worked for thousands of years in armed forces. Plus in
hierarchial groups such as tribes and villages centuries ago.
Oh, and in employment in general.

Or were you under the impression that employers have just been letting
staff do what they want rather than what supervisors/foremen/managers/
bosses want?
You really can be amusing at times.

Martin  <><

On 16 Jan, 17:40, Robbie  wrote:
> Niteawk wrote:
>
> > "Robbie"  wrote in message
> >news:5v6k32F1klgvjU1@mid.individual.net...
> >> Bill wrote:
> >>> "Robbie"  wrote in message
> >>>news:5v6hjtF1knq0eU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>>> Niteawk wrote:
> >>>>> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they
> >>>>> advertise?????????
>
> >>>> I'd have thought so.
>
> >>>> No-one advertises anywhere that they don't expect their intended
> >>>> audience to be.
>
> >>>> You could try stop being a claimant - most people find that a most
> >>>> satisfactory way of getting the dole of their backs.
>
> >>> In this case Nighthawk may have a point though in that the Jobcentre
> >>> will get as many people as possible to apply regardless of their
> >>> suitability for the post advertised.  I have been told to apply for
> >>> jobs I had no chance of getting "just for the experience" of applying
> >>> and interviews etc.
>
> >>> I have to agree with Robbie's second point as to the best way of
> >>> getting the dole off your back.  Fortunately I am now retired so can> >>> give the Jobcentre the middle finger with impunity as I walk past.
>
> >>> Bill
>
> >> If too many people are encouraged to apply for a job then the employer
> >> would soon get fed up of using the services of the JC unless they just
> >> bin applications without really reading them. That said, after a while
> >> (as in someone being unemployed for a while) the JC can, and will,
> >> begin to "persuade" people that they should be applying for jobs x, y
> >> or z. The irony is, by then, the person being forced to apply is
> >> usually the one of the applicants who are the least employable as they
> >> have normally been out of work for so long.
>
> > I have had letters from employers asking me not to apply again as the
> > company does not have the resources to waste processing unsuitable
> > applications, and they need someone suitable urgently etc.
>
> > Ah fuck it, I should have wrote to them and told them it was not me
> > wasting their precious time, but New Deal. The last time I told an
> > employer that, they phoned the JC to complain and I was as usual,
> > threatened with yet more sanctions, so I dont do it now as a rule :)
>
> > You are quite right about being forced to apply and being the least
> > employable, its being forced to apply that has created the unemployable
> > situation IMO. No one likes being ordered about, least of all being told> > what jobs you MUST apply for, once that happens, lines are drawn and it
> > becomes a battle. You cannot get away with ordering people about, it
> > never works.
>
> I tend not to put myself in positions where I'm likely to be ordered
> around - or at the very least I'm getting a decent pay packet out of it ;)> Robbie- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Indeed - or any pay packet.  :)

Few non-military organisations call them orders, but when a manager
tells you to go to a certain place and do a certain thing, it is in
effect an order.

Martin  <><

On 16 Jan, 12:55, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they
> advertise?????????

Yes and many are well aware that people may turn up for an interview
who don't want the job and will actively deter an employer from
employing them.

JCs used to be very interested in people doing this, though you would
have to be very un-subtle to get sanctioned for this, i.e. being very
very rude/offensive, turning up particularly dirty and smelly, saying
you had no relevant qualifications when you did etc.

A friend of mine working in the HR of a supermarket used to make a
point of letting the JC know if someone was really taking the piss at
an interview.  Most common was simply turning up and admitting that
they didn't want the job just a letter to say they'd applied.

Mike

On 16 Jan, 21:25, Mike 
wrote:
> On 16 Jan, 12:55, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
> > Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they
> > advertise?????????
>
> Yes and many are well aware that people may turn up for an interview
> who don't want the job and will actively deter an employer from
> employing them.
>
> JCs used to be very interested in people doing this, though you would
> have to be very un-subtle to get sanctioned for this, i.e. being very
> very rude/offensive, turning up particularly dirty and smelly, saying
> you had no relevant qualifications when you did etc.
>
> A friend of mine working in the HR of a supermarket used to make a
> point of letting the JC know if someone was really taking the piss at
> an interview.  Most common was simply turning up and admitting that
> they didn't want the job just a letter to say they'd applied.
>
> Mike

Come to think of it, just to waste employers time, many are forced to
interview people they have no intention of employing.
Under the guaranteed interview scheme, disabled people who meet the
minimum criteria for the job are guaranteed an interview - though I'm
not sure if there is some statutory requirement for employers to sign
up to the scheme.

Once they already have their token disabled employee, many then don't
want more unless they are so much better for the job than other
applicants.

So people get called to interview to waste both their time and
employers time, simply to satisfy a requirement for positive
discrimination.

Martin  <><

"Mike"  wrote in message 
news:e0fd5311-4862-4e04-a8b8-f1e82d0c7ec0@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On 16 Jan, 12:55, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they
>> advertise?????????
>
> Yes and many are well aware that people may turn up for an interview
> who don't want the job and will actively deter an employer from
> employing them.
>
> JCs used to be very interested in people doing this, though you would
> have to be very un-subtle to get sanctioned for this, i.e. being very
> very rude/offensive, turning up particularly dirty and smelly, saying
> you had no relevant qualifications when you did etc.
>
> A friend of mine working in the HR of a supermarket used to make a
> point of letting the JC know if someone was really taking the piss at
> an interview.  Most common was simply turning up and admitting that
> they didn't want the job just a letter to say they'd applied.
>

Yeah, I am sure this friend of yours can prove that at tribunal? somehow I 
doubt it, and would the boss mind this friend having time off to attend TS.
S/he would be on the dole in no time at all for a good ass kicking.

wrote in message 
news:ce4f99d1-e1ff-4945-8a33-c738c0d29e53@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On 16 Jan, 16:37, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>
> news:5v6k32F1klgvjU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Bill wrote:
> >> "Robbie"  wrote in message
> >>news:5v6hjtF1knq0eU1@mid.individual.net...
> >>> Niteawk wrote:
> >>>> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they
> >>>> advertise?????????
>
> >>> I'd have thought so.
>
> >>> No-one advertises anywhere that they don't expect their intended
> >>> audience to be.
>
> >>> You could try stop being a claimant - most people find that a most
> >>> satisfactory way of getting the dole of their backs.
>
> >> In this case Nighthawk may have a point though in that the Jobcentre 
> >> will
> >> get as many people as possible to apply regardless of their suitability
> >> for the post advertised. I have been told to apply for jobs I had no
> >> chance of getting "just for the experience" of applying and interviews
> >> etc.
>
> >> I have to agree with Robbie's second point as to the best way of 
> >> getting
> >> the dole off your back. Fortunately I am now retired so can give the
> >> Jobcentre the middle finger with impunity as I walk past.
>
> >> Bill
>
> > If too many people are encouraged to apply for a job then the employer
> > would soon get fed up of using the services of the JC unless they just 
> > bin
> > applications without really reading them. That said, after a while (as 
> > in
> > someone being unemployed for a while) the JC can, and will, begin to
> > "persuade" people that they should be applying for jobs x, y or z. The
> > irony is, by then, the person being forced to apply is usually the one 
> > of
> > the applicants who are the least employable as they have normally been 
> > out
> > of work for so long.
>
> I have had letters from employers asking me not to apply again as the
> company does not have the resources to waste processing unsuitable
> applications, and they need someone suitable urgently etc.
>
> Ah fuck it, I should have wrote to them and told them it was not me 
> wasting
> their precious time, but New Deal. The last time I told an employer that,
> they phoned the JC to complain and I was as usual, threatened with yet 
> more
> sanctions, so I dont do it now as a rule :)
>
> You are quite right about being forced to apply and being the least
> employable, its being forced to apply that has created the unemployable
> situation IMO. No one likes being ordered about, least of all being told
> what jobs you MUST apply for, once that happens, lines are drawn and it
> becomes a battle. You cannot get away with ordering people about, it never
> works.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Interesting how ytou have had letters from employers like that.
Many employers simply have a policy of only notifying people to attend
interview and not the rest, in order to save resources.
Still, nice they at least wrote to you asking you not to apply again.
Must remember not to apply for those employers myself......


I think it had something to do with ND, dont forget there was something like 
40 to 50 of us applying for the same jobs to get our quota, it did not 
matter that none of us were suitable, the rule was to apply for 5 jobs or be 
kicked off the course with immediate loss of benefit, most of the time we 
had to apply for jobs that had already gone, this was actively encouraged by 
the people who ran ND to meet the quota as set by the JC or whoever it was 
wasting your tax dollars, ultimately the DWP.


How exactly has being forced to apply created the unemployable
situation? I'd have thought time itself would have seen to that -
someone who hasn't worked for a few years not having as good a track
record as someone who only finished work a few months back.


Think about it now, somebody wants you to do something you do not like or 
want, have you got it yet? No, keep thinking and I am sure you will figure 
it out :)




Not sure about people not liking being ordered about. Tell us - have
you ever actually had a job?
Employers seem very keen on ordering their staff about - though like
the armed forces, they phrase orders as requests.

"You cannot get away with ordering people about, it never
works. "

Its only worked for thousands of years in armed forces. Plus in
hierarchial groups such as tribes and villages centuries ago.
Oh, and in employment in general.

Or were you under the impression that employers have just been letting
staff do what they want rather than what supervisors/foremen/managers/
bosses want?
You really can be amusing at times.



You do go off in tangents, dont you.

On 18 Jan, 01:02, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:ce4f99d1-e1ff-4945-8a33-c738c0d29e53@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On 16 Jan, 16:37, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robbie"  wrote in message
>
> >news:5v6k32F1klgvjU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > Bill wrote:
> > >> "Robbie"  wrote in message
> > >>news:5v6hjtF1knq0eU1@mid.individual.net...
> > >>> Niteawk wrote:
> > >>>> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they
> > >>>> advertise?????????
>
> > >>> I'd have thought so.
>
> > >>> No-one advertises anywhere that they don't expect their intended
> > >>> audience to be.
>
> > >>> You could try stop being a claimant - most people find that a most
> > >>> satisfactory way of getting the dole of their backs.
>
> > >> In this case Nighthawk may have a point though in that the Jobcentre
> > >> will
> > >> get as many people as possible to apply regardless of their suitability
> > >> for the post advertised. I have been told to apply for jobs I had no
> > >> chance of getting "just for the experience" of applying and interviews
> > >> etc.
>
> > >> I have to agree with Robbie's second point as to the best way of
> > >> getting
> > >> the dole off your back. Fortunately I am now retired so can give the
> > >> Jobcentre the middle finger with impunity as I walk past.
>
> > >> Bill
>
> > > If too many people are encouraged to apply for a job then the employer
> > > would soon get fed up of using the services of the JC unless they just
> > > bin
> > > applications without really reading them. That said, after a while (as
> > > in
> > > someone being unemployed for a while) the JC can, and will, begin to
> > > "persuade" people that they should be applying for jobs x, y or z. The
> > > irony is, by then, the person being forced to apply is usually the one
> > > of
> > > the applicants who are the least employable as they have normally been
> > > out
> > > of work for so long.
>
> > I have had letters from employers asking me not to apply again as the
> > company does not have the resources to waste processing unsuitable
> > applications, and they need someone suitable urgently etc.
>
> > Ah fuck it, I should have wrote to them and told them it was not me
> > wasting
> > their precious time, but New Deal. The last time I told an employer that,
> > they phoned the JC to complain and I was as usual, threatened with yet
> > more
> > sanctions, so I dont do it now as a rule :)
>
> > You are quite right about being forced to apply and being the least
> > employable, its being forced to apply that has created the unemployable
> > situation IMO. No one likes being ordered about, least of all being told
> > what jobs you MUST apply for, once that happens, lines are drawn and it
> > becomes a battle. You cannot get away with ordering people about, it never
> > works.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Interesting how ytou have had letters from employers like that.
> Many employers simply have a policy of only notifying people to attend
> interview and not the rest, in order to save resources.
> Still, nice they at least wrote to you asking you not to apply again.
> Must remember not to apply for those employers myself......
>
> I think it had something to do with ND, dont forget there was something like
> 40 to 50 of us applying for the same jobs to get our quota, it did not
> matter that none of us were suitable, the rule was to apply for 5 jobs or be
> kicked off the course with immediate loss of benefit, most of the time we
> had to apply for jobs that had already gone, this was actively encouraged by
> the people who ran ND to meet the quota as set by the JC or whoever it was
> wasting your tax dollars, ultimately the DWP.
>
> How exactly has being forced to apply created the unemployable
> situation? I'd have thought time itself would have seen to that -
> someone who hasn't worked for a few years not having as good a track
> record as someone who only finished work a few months back.
>
> Think about it now, somebody wants you to do something you do not like or
> want, have you got it yet? No, keep thinking and I am sure you will figure
> it out :)
>
> Not sure about people not liking being ordered about. Tell us - have
> you ever actually had a job?
> Employers seem very keen on ordering their staff about - though like
> the armed forces, they phrase orders as requests.
>
> "You cannot get away with ordering people about, it never
> works. "
>
> Its only worked for thousands of years in armed forces. Plus in
> hierarchial groups such as tribes and villages centuries ago.
> Oh, and in employment in general.
>
> Or were you under the impression that employers have just been letting
> staff do what they want rather than what supervisors/foremen/managers/
> bosses want?
> You really can be amusing at times.
>
> You do go off in tangents, dont you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You were the one that suggested that people don't like being ordered
about, and how it never works.  :)

Keep posting, you can be quite amusing.

Martin  <><

Come to think of it, just to waste employers time, many are forced to
interview people they have no intention of employing.
Under the guaranteed interview scheme, disabled people who meet the
minimum criteria for the job are guaranteed an interview - though I'm
not sure if there is some statutory requirement for employers to sign
up to the scheme.

Once they already have their token disabled employee, many then don't
want more unless they are so much better for the job than other
applicants.

So people get called to interview to waste both their time and
employers time, simply to satisfy a requirement for positive
discrimination.

Martin  <><

Many "two ticks" employers have now got to the stage where they actually ask 
disabled applicants on the form whether they want their guaranteed 
interview, or only want to be invited if they are up to the same standard as 
the other shortlisted candidates.

Paul

On Jan 16, 2:36 pm, "Bill"  wrote:
> "Robbie"  wrote in message
>
> news:5v6hjtF1knq0eU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Niteawk wrote:
> >> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they
> >> advertise?????????
>
> > I'd have thought so.
>
> > No-one advertises anywhere that they don't expect their intended audience
> > to be.
>
> > You could try stop being a claimant - most people find that a most
> > satisfactory way of getting the dole of their backs.
>
> In this case Nighthawk may have a point though in that the Jobcentre will
> get as many people as possible to apply regardless of their suitability for
> the post advertised.  I have been told to apply for jobs I had no chance of
> getting "just for the experience" of applying and interviews etc.
>
> I have to agree with Robbie's second point as to the best way of getting the
> dole off your back.  Fortunately I am now retired so can give the Jobcentre
> the middle finger with impunity as I walk past.
>
> Bill

the whole thing is silly. the JC claim they are there to vet on behalf
of the employer (this is their response when i asked why all their
jopbs are so poorly advertised, ommitting important details such as
venue). What then happens is they put everyone and anyone unemployed
for all the jobs they can, including those that are totally unsuitable
(including locations one cannot reach).
This is a very stupid practise.
Of course criticising the JC in the current social climate is not
going to do you any favours as everyone has been conditioned to resent
the unemployed as scroungers. Sadly this is as bullshit as the adverts
themselves.
What shoudl happen is the JC should adertise jobs effectively and deal
with timewasting employers and agencies likewise. They should also
canvass for jobs on the client's behalf working with him not against
him. Anything else is just taking a line of least resistance with
maximum aggro for the client.
I know there have been many cases where what the employer wanted to
advertise was not what they got.

On 18 Jan, 15:03, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2:36 pm, "Bill"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robbie"  wrote in message
>
> >news:5v6hjtF1knq0eU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > Niteawk wrote:
> > >> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they
> > >> advertise?????????
>
> > > I'd have thought so.
>
> > > No-one advertises anywhere that they don't expect their intended audience
> > > to be.
>
> > > You could try stop being a claimant - most people find that a most
> > > satisfactory way of getting the dole of their backs.
>
> > In this case Nighthawk may have a point though in that the Jobcentre will
> > get as many people as possible to apply regardless of their suitability for
> > the post advertised.  I have been told to apply for jobs I had no chance of
> > getting "just for the experience" of applying and interviews etc.
>
> > I have to agree with Robbie's second point as to the best way of getting the
> > dole off your back.  Fortunately I am now retired so can give the Jobcentre
> > the middle finger with impunity as I walk past.
>
> > Bill
>
> the whole thing is silly. the JC claim they are there to vet on behalf
> of the employer (this is their response when i asked why all their
> jopbs are so poorly advertised, ommitting important details such as
> venue). What then happens is they put everyone and anyone unemployed
> for all the jobs they can, including those that are totally unsuitable
> (including locations one cannot reach).
> This is a very stupid practise.
> Of course criticising the JC in the current social climate is not
> going to do you any favours as everyone has been conditioned to resent
> the unemployed as scroungers. Sadly this is as bullshit as the adverts
> themselves.
> What shoudl happen is the JC should adertise jobs effectively and deal
> with timewasting employers and agencies likewise. They should also
> canvass for jobs on the client's behalf working with him not against
> him. Anything else is just taking a line of least resistance with
> maximum aggro for the client.
> I know there have been many cases where what the employer wanted to
> advertise was not what they got.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Not so sure about the canvassing for jobs on client's behalf.
Client can usually do that themselves.

Totally unsuitable? Not actually come across many of those jobs.
Unless requiring qualifications or skills that the person hasn't got
(such as a driving job for someone banned for life from driving or
needing engineering qualifications but applicant didn't finish high
school).

I do have to wonder how much of what they do is because of government
targets or promises to ministers about things.
eg Brownhills JC will get an additional 500 people this week to apply
for more than 20 jobs........  :)



Martin  <><

On Jan 18, 6:52 pm, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:
> On 18 Jan, 15:03, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 16, 2:36 pm, "Bill"  wrote:
>
> > > "Robbie"  wrote in message
>
> > >news:5v6hjtF1knq0eU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > > Niteawk wrote:
> > > >> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they
> > > >> advertise?????????
>
> > > > I'd have thought so.
>
> > > > No-one advertises anywhere that they don't expect their intended audience
> > > > to be.
>
> > > > You could try stop being a claimant - most people find that a most
> > > > satisfactory way of getting the dole of their backs.
>
> > > In this case Nighthawk may have a point though in that the Jobcentre will
> > > get as many people as possible to apply regardless of their suitability for
> > > the post advertised.  I have been told to apply for jobs I had no chance of
> > > getting "just for the experience" of applying and interviews etc.
>
> > > I have to agree with Robbie's second point as to the best way of getting the
> > > dole off your back.  Fortunately I am now retired so can give the Jobcentre
> > > the middle finger with impunity as I walk past.
>
> > > Bill
>
> > the whole thing is silly. the JC claim they are there to vet on behalf
> > of the employer (this is their response when i asked why all their
> > jopbs are so poorly advertised, ommitting important details such as
> > venue). What then happens is they put everyone and anyone unemployed
> > for all the jobs they can, including those that are totally unsuitable
> > (including locations one cannot reach).
> > This is a very stupid practise.
> > Of course criticising the JC in the current social climate is not
> > going to do you any favours as everyone has been conditioned to resent
> > the unemployed as scroungers. Sadly this is as bullshit as the adverts
> > themselves.
> > What shoudl happen is the JC should adertise jobs effectively and deal
> > with timewasting employers and agencies likewise. They should also
> > canvass for jobs on the client's behalf working with him not against
> > him. Anything else is just taking a line of least resistance with
> > maximum aggro for the client.
> > I know there have been many cases where what the employer wanted to
> > advertise was not what they got.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Not so sure about the canvassing for jobs on client's behalf.
> Client can usually do that themselves.
>
The JC make great noises about how they are part of and have contacts
with the local infrastructure. why shouldn't they make more effort to
help people. they depend on the unemployed for work themselves so they
should actually do some.


> I do have to wonder how much of what they do is because of government
> targets or promises to ministers about things.
> eg Brownhills JC will get an additional 500 people this week to apply
> for more than 20 jobs........  :)
>
of course its targets. the whole thing is about targets. get people
off the dole any way you can and it makes the government look good,
even if those people are starving in the streets or forced onto the
sick as the case used to be (now they won't even get that).

don't think they actually help people. they don't.

<snipped>

> don't think they actually help people. they don't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Except when they help people.
I've been helped on occasion. My wife has found 3 of her last 5 jobs
from them, with their help.

Last time the JC even gave me £100 tax free once I'd started work. And
the organisation (Shaw Trust) they'd referred me to gave me £200 tax
free.

Martin  <><

On Jan 19, 11:50 am, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
wrote:
> <snipped>
>
> > don't think they actually help people. they don't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Except when they help people.
> I've been helped on occasion. My wife has found 3 of her last 5 jobs
> from them, with their help.
>
> Last time the JC even gave me £100 tax free once I'd started work. And
> the organisation (Shaw Trust) they'd referred me to gave me £200 tax
> free.
>
> Martin  <><

wow, that really makes up for all the misery everyone else has to
suffer as a result of successive governments' demonisation of the
unemployed.

JC don't give people money for starting work either.

wrote in message 
news:eed10154-5171-43d7-9171-3bfdd1138a0b@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
<snipped>

> don't think they actually help people. they don't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Except when they help people.
I've been helped on occasion. My wife has found 3 of her last 5 jobs
from them, with their help.

Last time the JC even gave me £100 tax free once I'd started work. And
the organisation (Shaw Trust) they'd referred me to gave me £200 tax
free.

Martin  <><

Wow, 300 quid! save a bit more and you might be able to pay a couple of fuel 
bills.

On 19 Jan, 14:58, ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Jan 19, 11:50 am, "mart2...@hotmail.com" 
> wrote:
>
> > <snipped>
>
> > > don't think they actually help people. they don't.- Hide quoted text -> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Except when they help people.
> > I've been helped on occasion. My wife has found 3 of her last 5 jobs
> > from them, with their help.
>
> > Last time the JC even gave me £100 tax free once I'd started work. And> > the organisation (Shaw Trust) they'd referred me to gave me £200 tax
> > free.
>
> > Martin  <><
>
> wow, that really makes up for all the misery everyone else has to
> suffer as a result of successive governments' demonisation of the
> unemployed.
>
> JC don't give people money for starting work either.

Then I suggest you ask the JC advisors why they are giving money out.

They have given money out, and up till at least last November they
were still doing it.

Martin  <><

On 19 Jan, 15:48, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:eed10154-5171-43d7-9171-3bfdd1138a0b@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> <snipped>
>
> > don't think they actually help people. they don't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Except when they help people.
> I've been helped on occasion. My wife has found 3 of her last 5 jobs
> from them, with their help.
>
> Last time the JC even gave me £100 tax free once I'd started work. And
> the organisation (Shaw Trust) they'd referred me to gave me £200 tax
> free.
>
> Martin  <><
>
> Wow, 300 quid! save a bit more and you might be able to pay a couple of fuel
> bills.

I do save quite a bit more.
I'm planning to pay my mortgage off in a few years time.

Martin  <><

wrote in message 
news:43a369c4-3374-4fc9-95e7-9efb64498c6e@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On 19 Jan, 15:48, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:eed10154-5171-43d7-9171-3bfdd1138a0b@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> <snipped>
>
> > don't think they actually help people. they don't.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Except when they help people.
> I've been helped on occasion. My wife has found 3 of her last 5 jobs
> from them, with their help.
>
> Last time the JC even gave me £100 tax free once I'd started work. And
> the organisation (Shaw Trust) they'd referred me to gave me £200 tax
> free.
>
> Martin <><
>
> Wow, 300 quid! save a bit more and you might be able to pay a couple of 
> fuel
> bills.

I do save quite a bit more.
I'm planning to pay my mortgage off in a few years time.

Martin  <><

Good thinking, the state will take it to cover the cost of any care you 
might need in the future.

On 19 Jan, 18:56, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:43a369c4-3374-4fc9-95e7-9efb64498c6e@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On 19 Jan, 15:48, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >  wrote in message
>
> >news:eed10154-5171-43d7-9171-3bfdd1138a0b@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> > <snipped>
>
> > > don't think they actually help people. they don't.- Hide quoted text -> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Except when they help people.
> > I've been helped on occasion. My wife has found 3 of her last 5 jobs
> > from them, with their help.
>
> > Last time the JC even gave me £100 tax free once I'd started work. And> > the organisation (Shaw Trust) they'd referred me to gave me £200 tax
> > free.
>
> > Martin <><
>
> > Wow, 300 quid! save a bit more and you might be able to pay a couple of
> > fuel
> > bills.
>
> I do save quite a bit more.
> I'm planning to pay my mortgage off in a few years time.
>
> Martin  <><
>
> Good thinking, the state will take it to cover the cost of any care you
> might need in the future.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Or I could just pay for the care out of cash.

Like I have been doing on occasion for the care I have already.
When you have some money you don't need to sell the house.

Martin  <><

In the Extra Info section of the HB claim form 
, 
"mart2306@hotmail.com"  writes
>
>Not sure about people not liking being ordered about. Tell us - have
>you ever actually had a job?
>Employers seem very keen on ordering their staff about - though like
>the armed forces, they phrase orders as requests.
>

Most employers don't respect your contribution enough to use your time 
efficiently, and surprisingly many don't give you enough to do. New or 
temporary staff often get bored if they aren't busy.

Once you've been in a workplace for a while, you can generally find 
enough to do without needing to work - but by then you've fitted into 
the social structure so you'll be doing work to oblige people.

>"You cannot get away with ordering people about, it never
>works. "
>Its only worked for thousands of years in armed forces. Plus in
>hierarchial groups such as tribes and villages centuries ago.
>Oh, and in employment in general.

What actually happens is that everyone tries to re-create their family 
structure in the workplace.  It's rare for a family to have people 
ordering each other about.
Much more common are families where Mum arranges everything and Dad is 
passive but pretends to be In Charge.  That's the commonest private 
sector structure, where the boss's PA runs the show.   She has no 
nominal authority; people do what she says because that's what they 
expect and feel comfortable with.

Armed forces tend to be heavily into teamwork, and good at sidelining 
anyone who throws their weight around without proper regard for everyone 
else.

>Or were you under the impression that employers have just been letting
>staff do what they want rather than what supervisors/foremen/managers/
>bosses want?

Yes, that's it.  Where there's regimentation you always get organised 
resistance to it among the workforce, so it's more efficient to arrange 
things so that people just feel more comfortable if they do some work, 
some of the time.

To the OP: work's really most interesting.  Do get a job if you can, and 
then enjoy the fascinating variety of dysfunctional people around you.

-- 
Sue @ Darkside Borough Council

Local government: whenever we look like making ends meet, Blair moves the ends

On 20 Jan, 00:32, Sue <S...@darkside.invalid> wrote:
> In the Extra Info section of the HB claim form
> ,
> "mart2...@hotmail.com"  writes
>
>
>
> >Not sure about people not liking being ordered about. Tell us - have
> >you ever actually had a job?
> >Employers seem very keen on ordering their staff about - though like
> >the armed forces, they phrase orders as requests.
>
> Most employers don't respect your contribution enough to use your time
> efficiently, and surprisingly many don't give you enough to do. New or
> temporary staff often get bored if they aren't busy.
>
> Once you've been in a workplace for a while, you can generally find
> enough to do without needing to work - but by then you've fitted into
> the social structure so you'll be doing work to oblige people.

LOL.
Sue, you have described some offices I've come across down to a T.
However, come and work with me and you'll find yourself needing many
more hours to do the work necessary.

Some of us work for companies where no-one is going to do the work but
us, never enough time and resources to do everything and always plenty
of work.


>
> >"You cannot get away with ordering people about, it never
> >works. "
> >Its only worked for thousands of years in armed forces. Plus in
> >hierarchial groups such as tribes and villages centuries ago.
> >Oh, and in employment in general.
>
> What actually happens is that everyone tries to re-create their family
> structure in the workplace.  It's rare for a family to have people
> ordering each other about.

Its quite common to have orders phrased as requests.
And some families muck in to get work done rather than leaving it to
one person.  :)

In the workplace you'll usually find a mixture of people who can
manage and people who are merely managers.
Both types of management need to get the staff doing the work, tends
to be somewhat different in how they get it done.




> Much more common are families where Mum arranges everything and Dad is
> passive but pretends to be In Charge.  

LOL.
Yes, plenty of those. As one of my friends puts it, he's in charge of
the big things like paying mortgage, sorting out insurances and
driving the car. His wife is in charge of the little things, like
shopping, holidays, furniture and clothing.

That's the commonest private
> sector structure, where the boss's PA runs the show.  

Usually with some general instructions from the boss. Though a few of
the PAs I've met do have to manage everything about their boss, others
are given instructions and told to get on with it.

 She has no
> nominal authority; people do what she says because that's what they
> expect and feel comfortable with.

And they expect to be told to do this work, or that work? And expect
to be pulled up for too many days off sick or late?

>
> Armed forces tend to be heavily into teamwork, and good at sidelining
> anyone who throws their weight around without proper regard for everyone
> else.

Not just armed forces.
Any small business can be heavily into teamwork as its much harder for
someone to goof off without the others having to pick up the slack.


>
> >Or were you under the impression that employers have just been letting
> >staff do what they want rather than what supervisors/foremen/managers/
> >bosses want?
>
> Yes, that's it.  Where there's regimentation you always get organised
> resistance to it among the workforce, so it's more efficient to arrange
> things so that people just feel more comfortable if they do some work,
> some of the time.

Some work, some of the time?
Darn, I've got to get myself a new job. A fundraiser working at the
council perhaps.  :)


>
> To the OP: work's really most interesting.  Do get a job if you can, and> then enjoy the fascinating variety of dysfunctional people around you.
>
> --
> Sue @ Darkside Borough Council
>
> Local government: whenever we look like making ends meet, Blair moves the ends


Oh yes, aren't local area agreements fun.........   :)

Martin  <><

On 18 Jan, 01:11, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> "Mike"  wrote in message
>
> news:e0fd5311-4862-4e04-a8b8-f1e82d0c7ec0@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 16 Jan, 12:55, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> >> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they
> >> advertise?????????
>
> > Yes and many are well aware that people may turn up for an interview
> > who don't want the job and will actively deter an employer from
> > employing them.
>
> > JCs used to be very interested in people doing this, though you would
> > have to be very un-subtle to get sanctioned for this, i.e. being very
> > very rude/offensive, turning up particularly dirty and smelly, saying
> > you had no relevant qualifications when you did etc.
>
> > A friend of mine working in the HR of a supermarket used to make a
> > point of letting the JC know if someone was really taking the piss at
> > an interview.  Most common was simply turning up and admitting that
> > they didn't want the job just a letter to say they'd applied.
>
> Yeah, I am sure this friend of yours can prove that at tribunal? somehow I> doubt it, and would the boss mind this friend having time off to attend TS> S/he would be on the dole in no time at all for a good ass kicking.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't know if any of the 'applicants' ever got sanctioned as there
is no way the JC would provide that feedback, however even if they did
and it went to appeal there would be no onus on him to attend, a
written statement would be adequate and it then comes down to the mood
of the tribunal.

Many of my visiting reports have been used as evidence in a tribunals,
I've had to translate several as my handwriting was too messy!  I have
never known the DWP to send witnesses to an appeal tribunal ever; the
DWP only ever provides evidence in written form at tribunal.

I've even provided written statements for courts re interviews,
decisions and even phone calls on occasion and have never been called
up to attend.  I only know/remember the outcome of one and that's 'cos
the fraud office e-mailed me before to close his claim down when he
was jailed for 9 mths.

My mate did comment that he thought it had reduced the number of
absolute no hopers the JC sent him so he felt it was time well spent!
They employ a lot of eastern Europeans now as they have a work ethic
as long as they have passable english ("coca cola aisle three!") he'll
take them on.


Mike

On Jan 20, 1:31 pm, Mike 
wrote:
> On 18 Jan, 01:11, "Niteawk"  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mike"  wrote in message
>
> >news:e0fd5311-4862-4e04-a8b8-f1e82d0c7ec0@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...> > > On 16 Jan, 12:55, "Niteawk"  wrote:
> > >> Are they aware that claimants are forced to apply for the jobs they
> > >> advertise?????????
>
> > > Yes and many are well aware that people may turn up for an interview
> > > who don't want the job and will actively deter an employer from
> > > employing them.
>
> > > JCs used to be very interested in people doing this, though you would
> > > have to be very un-subtle to get sanctioned for this, i.e. being very
> > > very rude/offensive, turning up particularly dirty and smelly, saying
> > > you had no relevant qualifications when you did etc.
>
> > > A friend of mine working in the HR of a supermarket used to make a
> > > point of letting the JC know if someone was really taking the piss at
> > > an interview.  Most common was simply turning up and admitting that
> > > they didn't want the job just a letter to say they'd applied.
>
> > Yeah, I am sure this friend of yours can prove that at tribunal? somehow I
> > doubt it, and would the boss mind this friend having time off to attend TS.
> > S/he would be on the dole in no time at all for a good ass kicking.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I don't know if any of the 'applicants' ever got sanctioned as there
> is no way the JC would provide that feedback, however even if they did
> and it went to appeal there would be no onus on him to attend, a
> written statement would be adequate and it then comes down to the mood
> of the tribunal.
>
> Many of my visiting reports have been used as evidence in a tribunals,
> I've had to translate several as my handwriting was too messy!  I have
> never known the DWP to send witnesses to an appeal tribunal ever; the
> DWP only ever provides evidence in written form at tribunal.
>
> I've even provided written statements for courts re interviews,
> decisions and even phone calls on occasion and have never been called
> up to attend.  I only know/remember the outcome of one and that's 'cos
> the fraud office e-mailed me before to close his claim down when he
> was jailed for 9 mths.
>
> My mate did comment that he thought it had reduced the number of
> absolute no hopers the JC sent him so he felt it was time well spent!
> They employ a lot of eastern Europeans now as they have a work ethic
> as long as they have passable english ("coca cola aisle three!") he'll
> take them on.
>
> Mike- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

i have to admit an interest here 3 years ago i used to work for a
private new deal consultancy and the above posts reminded me of some
of the idiot sanctions my clients got.

the jc went through a period of "testing the availability of job
seekers". basically finding jobs that were "suitable" for claimants
and if they didnt do a good showing at applying they would be
sanctioned.

1) a fully qualified electrical engineer was put forward for a job as
a mechanical engineer, he phoned the company and explained that he had
no idea about mechanical engineering and was told that there was no
point in turning up for the interview. The jc got hold of the list of
non attenders and stopped his benefit. It got to a tribunal before the
window licker at the jc admitted she had no idea that there was a
difference between mechanical and electrical engineering.

2) (i actually attended the tribunal on this one) my client was
engaged in New Deal for self employed and was doing well putting a
business plan together and sourcing funding. she got a letter from the
JC saying that they had arranged an interview for her at a medical
practice for a receptionist (a job she had said she would be
interested in doing) Unfortunately the job description indicated that
a candidate who could speak portuguese would be prefered (portuguese!*
also possible sic ). She phoned and asked if her ability to only speak
english and cantonees whould put her at a disadvantage and the guy
said that unofficially he was only going to employ a fluent portuguese
speaker, but didnt feel that he should put that in the ad. Once again
she didnt attend, she was so worried that she asked my advise and i
told her to tell the JC before hand that she would not be attending
and the reasons. i was listening in on the phone call and could not
believe the attitude of the desk monkey, she started ranting about how
she always knew that helping "you people" was a waste of time because
"you people" didnt want to work. Even though my client was of chinesee
decent i dont think that this was a rascist statement, i think "you
people" refered to job seekers in general.(funny tho' 'cos in my
experience most of the JC staff were recruited straight off the case
load!)....tribunal decision sanctions declined ...unofficial tribunal
responce to me over a cup of coffee "christ , we get this all the
time, they send people for jobs that they are clearly unsuitable for,
probably dont read the job description past the job title, then we
have to sort out the bloody mess!"

anyway thats my 2 new pence worth.

g