35 Hours a week jobsearch.

gother · 30/12/14 - 12:33

First off all this isn't a benefit bashing thread i just want peoples views and opinions.
I've been put on madatory 35 hours a week jobsearch now by the jobcentre personally it doesn't bother me as i do more than that anyway.
If the DWP want jobseekers to do full time working hours basically then shouldn't those on jsa be entitled to the same rights such as 21 days holiday etc?
Should they be paid the min wage 35 hours at min wage comes to about £225p/w not £71p/w well say £170p/w if you include the average housing benefit and council tax.
What are your views on this?

steveh31 · 30/12/14 - 12:36

When we were told we were going to be made redundant we got a visit from DWP who basically told us we should spend 35 hours every day including weekends to look for a job and prove it.

I was quite shocked that they were doing this but it seems they are determined to do everything to get people off benefits not matter what it takes.

TheTruth1983 · 30/12/14 - 12:39

steveh31 wrote: »

When we were told we were going to be made redundant we got a visit from DWP who basically told us we should spend 35 hours every day including weekends to look for a job and prove it.

I was quite shocked that they were doing this but it seems they are determined to do everything to get people off benefits not matter what it takes.

:o:o:o

Chihiro94 · 30/12/14 - 12:55

Does the 35 hours include the option to volunteer, take further training etc..? Surely if your struggling to find a job one of the best things you could do is to improve skills and get more experience that's up to date. It just seems like a waste of everyone's time otherwise because there's only ever going to be a certain number of jobs available, and especially if the reason someone is struggling in the first place is lack of experience.

I don't agree with being forced to carry out full time work, if you're forced to do a job in exchange for money then its should be at least minimum wage. I'm not sure if looking for work counts but it'd be unfair if they were to sanction you for being sick etc.. as everyone gets sick at some point.

steveh31 · 30/12/14 - 12:57

Chihiro94 wrote: »

Does the 35 hours include the option to volunteer, take further training etc..? Surely if your struggling to find a job one of the best things you could do is to improve skills and get more experience that's up to date. It just seems like a waste of everyone's time otherwise because there's only ever going to be a certain number of jobs available, and especially if the reason someone is struggling in the first place is lack of experience.

I don't agree with being forced to carry out full time work, if you're forced to do a job in exchange for money then its should be at least minimum wage. I'm not sure if looking for work counts but it'd be unfair if they were to sanction you for being sick etc.. as everyone gets sick at some point.

They just said you should be able to prove you have been looking 35 hours a week (8 hours a day) persumably from internet log ins.

Lushness · 30/12/14 - 12:59

steveh31 wrote: »

When we were told we were going to be made redundant we got a visit from DWP who basically told us we should spend 35 hours every day including weekends to look for a job and prove it.

I was quite shocked that they were doing this but it seems they are determined to do everything to get people off benefits not matter what it takes.

That might be a tad tricky!

steveh31 · 30/12/14 - 13:01

Lushness wrote: »

That might be a tad tricky!

Lol you don't know the jobcentre;-):p

[Deleted User] · 30/12/14 - 13:02

35 Hours a day:D

If you have all job alerts and use automated search programs which are available on all well known web browsers and pretty easy to set up I would imagine it's impossible to spend 35 hours a week looking for work.

Even doing manual searching I can't see how you could spend more than a couple of hours a day, and that would be really intensive searching by someone in a big city.

How someone who lives out on emmerdale farm or somewhere is supposed to do 35 hours a week, or even pretend to, I genuinely don't know.

gother · 30/12/14 - 13:02

Chihiro94 wrote: »

Does the 35 hours include the option to volunteer, take further training etc..? Surely if your struggling to find a job one of the best things you could do is to improve skills and get more experience that's up to date. It just seems like a waste of everyone's time otherwise because there's only ever going to be a certain number of jobs available, and especially if the reason someone is struggling in the first place is lack of experience.

I don't agree with being forced to carry out full time work, if you're forced to do a job in exchange for money then its should be at least minimum wage. I'm not sure if looking for work counts but it'd be unfair if they were to sanction you for being sick etc.. as everyone gets sick at some point.

When i do my volunteer work at the soup kitchen it doesn't count towards my 35 hours, my advisor actually said i'm expected to look for work over Christmas too although common sense prevails.
I've enquired about training and was told no funding available although my advisor kind of agreed with me that the work programme should be scrapped and the money used for training people to learn suitable and new skills instead.
I even went as far as asking for a work placement at the jobcentre itself.
I haven't given them access to my UJM but i might as atm i'm filling out my ujm account searches on the website aswell as filling out a joblog and a workplan booklet too, it wasn't explained to me if i fill out work plan book and joblog or not so i'm filling out both to be safe.

Rhumbatugger · 30/12/14 - 13:02

It's stupid and punitive.

In most areas there aren't enough jobs to look at and apply for that would take up that time.

And really few that are possible to actually get.

It's just another way of beating the jobless down and giving the DWP as many opportunities to save money by issuing sanctions which send the jobless to the food banks.

Unreasonable, deeply cynical and immoral.

Lewi26 · 30/12/14 - 13:29

I used to be on the dole and all I did after my proper search (which lasted an hour tops) was print off a shit load of jobs, some that even didn't match my skills. They can't check if you have actually applied for them. Also I wasn't allowed to volunteer as I would still have to look that much and even when I was put on to courses I had the same job search to do but to be fair they were a bit more lenient and I got a job from it but had to wait all summer and they were nice as pie then and never checked my job search even though I still signed on for a few months

tiacat · 30/12/14 - 14:46

How on earth would you prove it. I suppose if you have exceptionally slow typing skills and poor understanding of search engines, it might take you a long time but theres only so many sites to search and jobs to apply for, or are you expected to apply for the same job day after day?

kimindex · 30/12/14 - 14:59

Rhumbatugger wrote: »

It's stupid and punitive.

In most areas there aren't enough jobs to look at and apply for that would take up that time.

And really few that are possible to actually get.

It's just another way of beating the jobless down and giving the DWP as many opportunities to save money by issuing sanctions which send the jobless to the food banks.

Unreasonable, deeply cynical and immoral.

Yes and IDS thinks he should claim for £39 breakfasts and £100s for wet wipes. What a dreadful government this is.

https://twitter.com/BadgerMark1972/status/539140751255277568/photo/1

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-claimed-breakfast-1810086

Lushness · 30/12/14 - 15:00

Lewi26 wrote: »

I used to be on the dole and all I did after my proper search (which lasted an hour tops) was print off a shit load of jobs, some that even didn't match my skills. They can't check if you have actually applied for them. Also I wasn't allowed to volunteer as I would still have to look that much and even when I was put on to courses I had the same job search to do but to be fair they were a bit more lenient and I got a job from it but had to wait all summer and they were nice as pie then and never checked my job search even though I still signed on for a few months

I've had JC Advisors ring me to check whether people have applied for jobs. Obviously they haven't got the resources to do this for each claimant; I suspect those sorts of checks are reserved for claimants who the JC Advisors have their suspicions about.

James_May · 30/12/14 - 15:02

steveh31 wrote: »

They just said you should be able to prove you have been looking 35 hours a week (8 hours a day) persumably from internet log ins.

7 hours a day, 5 if you include weekends. Or looking at it another way, 168 hours in a week and they want you to use 35 of them job-hunting. Not too unreasonable, but I don't know how you can prove it.

SaturnV · 30/12/14 - 15:04

If you've got no job why does it take the govt to suggest you work full time at finding one?
What the hell else would you be doing? (Assuming you actually want a job)
Yes, been there, done that, easily occupied full time hours.

TheTruth1983 · 30/12/14 - 15:06

kimindex wrote: »

Yes and IDS thinks he should claim for £39 breakfasts and £100s for wet wipes. What a dreadful government this is.

https://twitter.com/BadgerMark1972/status/539140751255277568/photo/1

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-claimed-breakfast-1810086

Yeah, because the last lot didn't abuse expenses.

This is government for you. Everything done by politicians is designed to justify their own existence.

planets · 30/12/14 - 15:07

kimindex wrote: »

Yes and IDS thinks he should claim for £39 breakfasts and £100s for wet wipes. What a dreadful government this is.

https://twitter.com/BadgerMark1972/status/539140751255277568/photo/1

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/iain-duncan-smith-claimed-breakfast-1810086

not even just £100 on wipes there are 6 entries in a row, some are described as "stationary" some as "other":
wipes £84.67
wipes £41.47
wipes £80.45
wipes £40.22
wipes £82.94
wipes £100.56
grand total of £430.31

wtf is he cleaning to spend that much on wipes?....

kimindex · 30/12/14 - 15:09

TheTruth1983 wrote: »

Yeah, because the last lot didn't abuse expenses.

This is government for you. Everything done by politicians is designed to justify their own existence.

Yeah, because I made that claim, didn't I?

The difference is is that this government is carrying out vindictive, ideologically punitive, nasty policies as described in the thread.

And not all politicians are the same, just like any demographic (with the possible exception of UKIP voters). IDS is distinctly worse than average.

kimindex · 30/12/14 - 15:12

planets wrote: »

not even just £100 on wipes there are 6 entries in a row, some are described as "stationary" some as "other":
wipes £84.67
wipes £41.47
wipes £80.45
wipes £40.22
wipes £82.94
wipes £100.56
grand total of £430.31

wtf is he cleaning to spend that much on wipes?....

The mind boggles. Why should he think it's OK to charge them to taxpayers? Just because he can, doesn't mean he should (and that goes for other such expenses claims, of course, like Cameron's wisteria. They preach austerity and then claim for stuff like that).

SaturnV · 30/12/14 - 15:14

kimindex wrote: »

Yeah, because I made that claim, didn't I?

The difference is is that this government is carrying out vindictive, ideologically punitive, nasty policies as described in the thread.

And not all politicians are the same, just like any demographic (with the possible exception of UKIP voters). IDS is distinctly worse than average.

Can you explain how it's vindictive/nasty for you to be expected to put in a full week looking for work and why you wouldn't be doing that anyway?

TheTruth1983 · 30/12/14 - 15:18

kimindex wrote: »

Yeah, because I made that claim, didn't I?

The difference is is that this government is carrying out vindictive, ideologically punitive, nasty policies as described in the thread.

And not all politicians are the same, just like any demographic (with the possible exception of UKIP voters). IDS is distinctly worse than average.

And with that, you ruin any point you were making. I am no fan of UKIP but statements like that are just childish.

[Deleted User] · 30/12/14 - 15:25

Chihiro94 wrote: »

Does the 35 hours include the option to volunteer, take further training etc..?

The Jobcentre can require the claimant to spend up to 35hrs job searching a week if that is reasonable it is usually deemed reasaonable if the claimant could work 35hrs a week, they are claiming to be avialable for full-time work of 35hrs or more a week (there are exceptions for those with children, the disabled if they can not reasonable do so, carers claiming JSA, who are only looking for part-time work as they are unavailable for full time work)

Half the time doing volunatry work is deducted from this time.

If doing a work experience placement it counts as below
Whilst the claimant is engaged in carrying out a
1.work preparation requirement or
2.voluntary work preparation (that is work preparation not required by but agreed to by the Secretary of State)
then the claimant does not have to comply with a work search requirement if it would be unreasonable to do so
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/359973/admr4.pdf

CM · 30/12/14 - 15:30

steveh31 wrote: »

When we were told we were going to be made redundant we got a visit from DWP who basically told us we should spend 35 hours every day including weekends to look for a job and prove it.

I was quite shocked that they were doing this but it seems they are determined to do everything to get people off benefits not matter what it takes.

Don't go into accounting

evil c · 30/12/14 - 15:34

Just thought I'd read the nitty gritty of the 35 hours a week jobsearch and it's not as cut and dried as some are making out. For example you don't have to look for the full 35 hours if 'Jobcentre Plus is satisfied you've taken all reasonable action to get work, even though you’ve spent less than your expected number of hours doing this': http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/benefits_e/benefits_welfare_benefits_reform_e/benefits_uc_universal_credit_new/benefits_uc_work_related_requirements/benefits_uc_what_are_the_work_related_requirements/benefits_uc_what_is_the_work_search_requirement/uc22_uc_how_much_time_do_you_usually_have_to_spend_looking_for_work.htm

James_May · 30/12/14 - 15:43

SaturnV wrote: »

Can you explain how it's vindictive/nasty for you to be expected to put in a full week looking for work and why you wouldn't be doing that anyway?

She could if she were free, but she's probably in consultation at the moment with her fellow proctologists on another forum discussing the merits of our sphincters.

Did someone say nasty and vindictive...

Hey there!

Quick Links

35 Hours a week jobsearch.

Comments