Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Universal Job Match - Do NOT sign!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 22-03-2013, 08:20
krok
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 15
If you have not allowed the DWP access to your account how did you prove that you have created one? Did you use screenshots?

What exactly did you screenshot to show your advisor?
All they need to confirm you have joined is your email address only.

Do not give them anything else.

Do not tick the box.
krok is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-03-2013, 14:52
NicolaClare
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 230
Indeed, nor Jobs Warehouse or CV-Library.co.uk.

Both appear to be nothing more than spammers and also seem to be nicking job descriptions from other websites.

What the DWP/Government SHOULD have done with UJM is to make it more like Indeed.co.uk, where it isn't a jobsearch websites as such, but a site that searches other jobsites instead, giving relevant results from a whole wealth of major job search websites.
My advisor told me that the confidentials are recruitment agencies....... What?
NicolaClare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2013, 19:26
Charnham
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nr Peterborough, England
Posts: 44,816
quick question for you guys

If I apply for a job, via UJM is there a way to get a email conformation from the website (if the employer does not email back something),. that I could then fwd to my Work Program advisor?

My advisor told me that the confidentials are recruitment agencies....... What?
that is logical, agency's dont wish you to know where they are recruiting for, so you dont just bypass them, and apply straight to the employer.
Charnham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-03-2013, 23:41
Scamps
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Wales
Posts: 2,740
I hate this service, i've not been able to sign in all week, and i need to sign on tomorrow! I hate hate hate it! Im going to ask for a job log back!

Whoever designed and set up this site should seriously consider moving job departments, its awfully designed, awfully set up, and awful to use!

Im getting so stressed by the site! Im refusing to use it while i have the option
Scamps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2013, 00:54
captainkremmen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: DAVEVILLE, Daveshire DA1 1VE
Posts: 32,573
My advisor told me that the confidentials are recruitment agencies....... What?
Possibly, but that seems strange.

On no other job search website have I ever seen a job agency advertise a job and refuse to put either the employer's name, or the name of the job agency on the vacancy. But I do see it a fair bit on UJM.
captainkremmen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2013, 16:06
Lucozades
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2
I hate this service, i've not been able to sign in all week, and i need to sign on tomorrow! I hate hate hate it! Im going to ask for a job log back!

Whoever designed and set up this site should seriously consider moving job departments, its awfully designed, awfully set up, and awful to use!

Im getting so stressed by the site! Im refusing to use it while i have the option
That made me laugh, but only because I'd just read this from the DWP: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21954468

Quote: "We are developing digital services that are so good people will prefer to use them..."
Lucozades is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2013, 16:20
Lucozades
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2
All they need to confirm you have joined is your email address only.

Do not give them anything else.
You don't even have to give them that, and nor should you. There are many ways they can access your account without knowing your email address. They ask for that because it is the easiest way to find you on the system but also because it gives them a contact email address for you. JSA is not conditional on providing an email address or a telephone number.

Advisers can now give jobseeker's directions verbally, by email or by phone. Do you really want to give them an excuse to sanction you because you didn't happen to hear your phone and missed the call?

There's a form you can fill in to have your email and phone number removed from the system. Don't assume that if it isn't on the local JCP system that they don't have it - DWP may still have it. Ask for the form to have it removed completely (can't remember the form number but it comes under data protection).
Lucozades is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2013, 17:40
Charnham
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nr Peterborough, England
Posts: 44,816
That made me laugh, but only because I'd just read this from the DWP: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21954468

Quote: "We are developing digital services that are so good people will prefer to use them..."
I have to agree, UJM is a mess, as well as things like this

quick question for you guys

If I apply for a job, via UJM is there a way to get a email conformation from the website (if the employer does not email back something),. that I could then fwd to my Work Program advisor?
I emailed them, and there is not a way to do that.

Also when I look at the list of jobs, and try to move to another page, it tells me it cant.

Its a long way behind alot of other Jobsearch websites.
Charnham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 18:11
gem2626
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 222
God I hate universal job match. It's such a pain when you apply for a job, get taken to a different website then several other places to fill in an application and then have to open a new tab, go back into universal job match and wok out were the hell you were on the page.

Also, when they recommend a job that is in no way suitable and you click on whichever reason it is that you are not going to apply for it WHY oh why doesn't that job just disappear off the list? Why is it left there to confuse me? Grrrrrrrrrrr

I'm using it but the job centre have moaned that i'm not using it properly and that evil word 'sanction' has been brought up! When I say i'm not using it properly I check what jobs there are and only tend to sign in if there is anything suitable to apply for. I'm also totally rubbish at filling in the activity section when i've made phone calls etc. I do still write everything on paper though which they are not happy about.

So, I understand that UJM is now mandatory. Does this mean that I have to sign up to it but I can stick to the old system and still put everything down on paper OR does it mean that I have to be signed up to it, have to use it for job searching but I don't have to give permission for the job centre to see what i'm doing.

Basically, because half my job searching is on UJM and the other has been on paper (everything I do has gone down on paper) can they sanction me? By ticking that access box have I set myself up to be sanctioned?

If I untick that box so that they can't see I feel like they're going to find away to sanction me as a sort of punishment. I have a new advisor and I don't trust her at all.
gem2626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 18:32
krok
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 15
God I hate universal job match. It's such a pain when you apply for a job, get taken to a different website then several other places to fill in an application and then have to open a new tab, go back into universal job match and wok out were the hell you were on the page.

Also, when they recommend a job that is in no way suitable and you click on whichever reason it is that you are not going to apply for it WHY oh why doesn't that job just disappear off the list? Why is it left there to confuse me? Grrrrrrrrrrr

I'm using it but the job centre have moaned that i'm not using it properly and that evil word 'sanction' has been brought up! When I say i'm not using it properly I check what jobs there are and only tend to sign in if there is anything suitable to apply for. I'm also totally rubbish at filling in the activity section when i've made phone calls etc. I do still write everything on paper though which they are not happy about.

So, I understand that UJM is now mandatory. Does this mean that I have to sign up to it but I can stick to the old system and still put everything down on paper OR does it mean that I have to be signed up to it, have to use it for job searching but I don't have to give permission for the job centre to see what i'm doing.

Basically, because half my job searching is on UJM and the other has been on paper (everything I do has gone down on paper) can they sanction me? By ticking that access box have I set myself up to be sanctioned?

If I untick that box so that they can't see I feel like they're going to find away to sanction me as a sort of punishment. I have a new advisor and I don't trust her at all.
As i have said many times, do not tick the box.

You have set yourself up to be sanctioned by ticking the box.

It is not mandatory to give them access so dont.

You can untick the box but you have to tell them if you do.

I just cant understand why you would want to give them access in the first place.

Dont do it.
krok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 18:40
gem2626
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 222
As i have said many times, do not tick the box.

You have set yourself up to be sanctioned by ticking the box.

It is not mandatory to give them access so dont.

You can untick the box but you have to tell them if you do.

I just cant understand why you would want to give them access in the first place.

Dont do it.
I think people feel pressured to tick the box and I think the job centre think that if you don't tick the box then you're just being uncooperative and have something to hide.

So they know i'm signed up for UJM, they've seen before that i'm using it. Can I untick the box and write evrything down on paper still or do I have to show screen prints every time I go?

They will not be happy.
gem2626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 09:04
krok
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 15
I think people feel pressured to tick the box and I think the job centre think that if you don't tick the box then you're just being uncooperative and have something to hide.

So they know i'm signed up for UJM, they've seen before that i'm using it. Can I untick the box and write evrything down on paper still or do I have to show screen prints every time I go?

They will not be happy.
Yes you can untick the box.

Its tough if they are unhappy.

Yes write everything down and take a printout of all jobs applied for through ujm. Do this just before you sign on.

That way they have no reason to sanction you.

It is still your legal right to keep your personal details to yourself.

Do not tick the box.

If you have ticked it just untick it.
krok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2013, 14:36
WhatJoeThinks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,338
gem2626, listen to krok, he/she speaks the truth. UJM isn't designed to help you find employment, it's designed as a way to work against you and, ultimately, sanction you. Go back to filling in bits of paper, tell them you no longer wish to waive your right to privacy, don't let them bully you and don't worry whether or not they'll be happy about it. Stand up for yourself!
WhatJoeThinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 18:09
Fizzbin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: East London
Posts: 21,977
They have got to be kidding!

http://designmuseum.org/exhibitions/...-the-year-2013

DIGITAL


Gov.UK Website
Designed by Government Digital Service
Have these morons actually looked at UJM?
Fizzbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 18:17
WhatJoeThinks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,338
They have got to be kidding!

http://designmuseum.org/exhibitions/...-the-year-2013

Have these morons actually looked at UJM?
It's actually a pretty good, if utilitarian, website. Politics (or policies) has no bearing on that.
WhatJoeThinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 18:22
Fizzbin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: East London
Posts: 21,977
It's actually a pretty good, if utilitarian, website. Politics (or policies) has no bearing on that.
Who said it did? It's a hideously ugly site nonetheless.
Fizzbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 18:37
Charnham
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nr Peterborough, England
Posts: 44,816
They have got to be kidding!

http://designmuseum.org/exhibitions/...-the-year-2013



Have these morons actually looked at UJM?
I have to agree, taking polotics out, its a god awful design, its in on way user friendly, and doesn't deliver half of what's expected of it.
Charnham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 19:06
WhatJoeThinks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,338
I have to agree, taking polotics out, its a god awful design, its in on way user friendly, and doesn't deliver half of what's expected of it.
I disagree. I've been a website designer for ~12 years (not that I'm pulling rank here!) and I think the navigation of the site it pretty good. No lists of lists of lists, just a single, simple list. If you want to find something it's very straightforward and doesn't leave your eyes darting around for something you might have missed. Try looking something up and you'll find it quite easily. Whether the information you find is helpful or not is another issue entirely.
WhatJoeThinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 19:19
Charnham
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nr Peterborough, England
Posts: 44,816
I disagree. I've been a website designer for ~12 years (not that I'm pulling rank here!) and I think the navigation of the site it pretty good. No lists of lists of lists, just a single, simple list. If you want to find something it's very straightforward and doesn't leave your eyes darting around for something you might have missed. Try looking something up and you'll find it quite easily. Whether the information you find is helpful or not is another issue entirely.
I take your point that the basic navigation is ok/good, however after that it falls apart.

You can do a search, move from Page 1 of the results, and Page 2, doesn't exist, go back to Page 1, try again, and it exists again.

Meanwhile the lack of a uniform style on job listings is off putting, and ive seen some, which would could be seen as discriminatory, to those with even mild sight loss.

The distance function doesn't work at al, a distance church of 20 miles will take you 40 miles easy, as mentioned before the Review Your Skills section, only takes a random guess at which job, you want the skills for.

Meanwhile its not the 360, one stop shop service we were promised, and it misses basic functions, like sending emails, confirming that you applied for a job.

The sign up process is harder than it needs to be.

You may have been a website designer for 12 years, but design is never about, what something looks like, its about how well something work. The website frequently doesn't work, and makes a hash of basic concepts. It maybe easy to navigate, but once you get into the detail, and why someone calls to the website, it falls down.
Charnham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 19:34
WhatJoeThinks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,338
I take your point that the basic navigation is ok/good, however after that it falls apart.

You can do a search, move from Page 1 of the results, and Page 2, doesn't exist, go back to Page 1, try again, and it exists again.

Meanwhile the lack of a uniform style on job listings is off putting, and ive seen some, which would could be seen as discriminatory, to those with even mild sight loss.

The distance function doesn't work at al, a distance church of 20 miles will take you 40 miles easy, as mentioned before the Review Your Skills section, only takes a random guess at which job, you want the skills for.

Meanwhile its not the 360, one stop shop service we were promised, and it misses basic functions, like sending emails, confirming that you applied for a job.

The sign up process is harder than it needs to be.

You may have been a website designer for 12 years, but design is never about, what something looks like, its about how well something work. The website frequently doesn't work, and makes a hash of basic concepts. It maybe easy to navigate, but once you get into the detail, and why someone calls to the website, it falls down.
To be clear, I was talking about gov.uk, which is the design award nominee, not jobsearch.direct.gov.uk. There is no page 2 of any results, as far as I can see, on the gov.uk site. And yes, I know what design is about. I did say earlier that it was utilitarian (as is, or was, Google), which is a good thing. The government has no business wasting taxpayers' money on fancy graphics.
WhatJoeThinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 19:39
WhatJoeThinks
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,338
Who said it did? It's a hideously ugly site nonetheless.
You said, "Have these morons actually looked at UJM?", so I assumed you were taking exception to that. The only mention of UJM on the gov.uk website is information and links to that site. I guess we're talking at cross-purposes. Sorry.
WhatJoeThinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 20:10
Charnham
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: nr Peterborough, England
Posts: 44,816
To be clear, I was talking about gov.uk, which is the design award nominee, not jobsearch.direct.gov.uk. There is no page 2 of any results, as far as I can see, on the gov.uk site. And yes, I know what design is about. I did say earlier that it was utilitarian (as is, or was, Google), which is a good thing. The government has no business wasting taxpayers' money on fancy graphics.
without doing a big search of gov.uk, now I will agree is stripped back to the basics design wise, however I would make two points

1) when ive used it recently, ive found the information was not as detailed as it used to be when it was Direct Gov

2) there was nothing really wrong with Direct Gov, it didnt need a make over.

You talk about wasting money with fancy graphics, but I would say Gov.uk, despite the back to basics design, wasnt needed, and the contact on DirectGov was better.
Charnham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 20:12
Fizzbin
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: East London
Posts: 21,977
You said, "Have these morons actually looked at UJM?", so I assumed you were taking exception to that. The only mention of UJM on the gov.uk website is information and links to that site. I guess we're talking at cross-purposes. Sorry.
I see. When you use UJM it does rather give the impression it is part of the gov.uk site. The main site seems fine.
Fizzbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 00:46
quinnicus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 342
Found this interesting article

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2013...rsal-jobmatch/

"A tragic case in the US has highlighted how unemployed and disabled people forced to use the Government’s Universal Jobmatch website may literally be risking their lives."..................
quinnicus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2013, 01:08
UltimateX
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 92
Got lied to last week by my advisor.

Was told that allowing the DWP access to my Universal Jobmatch was now mandatory, advisor was absolutely adamant that allowing access to my Universal Jobmatch account was mandatory.

I asked for where exactly in official DWP documents that is stated I must allow the jobcentre access, she asked her colleague who told her that allowing access to a Universal Jobmatch is in fact NOT mandatory and she then claimed she was mistaken and I actually was not required to allow her access.

She was trying to trick me, well she failed!
UltimateX is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:07.